A waiver of Sixth Amendment rights is required before questioning about the uncharged larceny.

Outline (brief)

• Hook and setup: a quick recall of the scenario with Fred, Jones, and two crimes.

• Quick refresher: the difference between the 5th Amendment (Miranda) and the 6th Amendment (right to counsel) and when each attaches.

• The question at hand: which statement is true about questioning about crimes not yet indicted.

• The given key: the “correct” choice that a Sixth Amendment waiver is needed before talking about the larceny.

• Plain-language explanation: why the larceny topic triggers a waiver in this scenario, and how that aligns with the idea that charges drive the 6th Amendment.

• A note on the arson piece: why it may not apply if arson is already charged.

• Practical takeaways: how to think about rights during police questioning in similar setups, with a few study-friendly tips.

• Closing thought: keeping the legal concepts clear amid the noise of real-life interrogation stories.

A scene you won’t forget

Let’s set the stage like a police briefing: Fred isn’t indicted for the larceny. He’s being questioned, and there’s talk about two separate crimes—an arson charge in one corner and a larceny issue in the other. The question on the page asks which statement is true about obtaining waivers before questioning about these offenses. It’s a classic test of the old legal rule that reminds us: not every right shows up in every pocket of a crime scene.

A quick refresher: what attaches when

Two big ideas drive this: the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination (the Miranda warnings) and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. They’re cousins, but they don’t always show up in the same place at the same time.

• Miranda and the Fifth: If you’re in custody and being questioned about conduct, the police must give you the Miranda warnings and you must knowingly waive them. This is about protecting against self-incrimination, not about who paid for the coffee at a crime scene.

• The Sixth Amendment and counsel: The right to have a lawyer present when you’re facing formal criminal proceedings. This right attaches at the time of charges—typically when you’re indicted or when an information is filed.

Now, the question itself

Which statement is true regarding Fred’s questioning about crimes he has not been indicted for?

• A. Jones must get a waiver of Miranda rights before questioning about either offense.

• B. Jones must get a waiver of 6th Amendment rights before talking about the arson.

• C. Jones must get a waiver of 6th Amendment rights before talking about the larceny.

• D. Jones must get a waiver of 6th Amendment rights before discussing either crime.

The key you shared says the correct answer is C: Jones must get a waiver of 6th Amendment rights before talking about the larceny. That’s a specific, targeted takeaway: for the larceny, a waiver of Sixth Amendment rights is required before questioning.

Why that answer gets picked in this scenario

Here’s the line of thinking that aligns with that choice. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel generally attaches once formal charges have been filed against a defendant in connection with a particular offense. If Fred hasn’t been indicted for the larceny, the question implies that the investigation is still at a stage where charges haven’t been brought for that crime yet. In that framing, the other offense (arson) might already be in a charged phase, which would affect the rights in play there.

The trick for many students is separating the two offenses and recognizing that the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment is not universal for every uncharged crime a person hears about. In this scenario, the larceny is the offense for which the question assumes the right to counsel would kick in only after a formal charge. So, to question Fred about the larceny before any indictment, the party asking questions would need to obtain a waiver of those Sixth Amendment rights specifically for that uncharged offense.

A practical twist in the scenario

Think of it like this: the arson issue might already have a procedural posture (charges filed, counsel in place, etc.), while the larceny issue is still in the pre-charge phase. If you’re interrogating someone about a crime for which no formal charge exists yet, the Sixth Amendment rights are not automatically on, but the Miranda rights still apply if you’re in custody. The exam’s phrasing—and the chosen answer—emphasizes the nuance: a targeted waiver of Sixth Amendment rights before delving into that specific uncharged larceny topic.

A note on the arson bit

You’ll notice the explanation says the waiver for arson “may not be applicable if Fred is already facing charges related to it.” That’s a nod to the idea that once charges exist for a crime, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has already attached for that offense. If you’re not talking about arson under those charged conditions, the waiver isn’t the focus there. The emphasis remains on the larceny because, in this scenario, that offense is the one lacking a charge at that moment.

What this means for your thinking

• Separate offenses matter. Treat each crime as its own crime scene when it comes to constitutional rights. The moment charges are filed for one offense, the Sixth Amendment attaches for that offense; for another offense without charges, the right may not be in play in the same way.

• Miranda vs Sixth Amendment in practice. Even if the Sixth Amendment isn’t attached for an uncharged crime, the police still must respect Miranda rights during interrogation. So the “waiver” you need to discuss for the larceny is a Sixth Amendment thing in this scenario, not a Miranda waiver.

• The power of precise language. A test question like this hinges on precise terms—indicted, charged, waived, and which offense is under consideration. Your job is to keep them straight so you can map the rights to the right moment in time.

A few study-friendly takeaways

• Build a quick decision map: is there a formal charge (indictment or information) for this offense? If yes, Sixth Amendment rights are in play. If not, the focus shifts to Miranda rights for the interrogation.

• Watch for cross-offers: a crime with charges can still be interrogated about another, uncharged crime—but the questions about that uncharged crime typically require careful handling regarding the Sixth Amendment before any questioning begins.

• Practice with contrast examples: compare a scenario where a suspect is indicted for larceny but not for arson, and vice versa. See how the rights attach differently and why the exam would pick one answer over another.

• Keep the wording tight: exams love to test the exact moment rights attach. If you can nail down the trigger—indictment or information—you’ll reduce a lot of confusion.

A final thought

Rights in criminal procedure aren’t a single block you can lift all at once. They’re a careful balance of timing, charges, and the exact wording of the question. In this particular setup, the choice that focuses on a Sixth Amendment waiver for the larceny underscores a critical concept: rights attach when the case moves into a charged phase, and different offenses can exist in different procedural states at the same time. Understanding that rhythm helps you navigate similar questions with more confidence.

If you enjoy these real-world-style scenarios, you’ll find they map nicely to how the law feels in the field—where you need clarity, quick reasoning, and a steady grip on what’s actually happening in a given moment. And yes, it’s perfectly okay to pause, re-check the facts, and walk through the logic aloud. Sometimes explaining it to yourself out loud is the fastest way to see where the line falls between the 5th and the 6th, and what it means for how a future interrogation should be handled.

Bottom line

For this specific setup, the statement that holds true is the one about needing a Sixth Amendment waiver before discussing the larceny. It’s a crisp reminder that, in the world of criminal procedure, the moment charges come into play for a particular offense, the right to counsel follows that path—and for uncharged offenses, the focus can swing back toward Miranda rights, until the stage shifts.

If you’re mapping these ideas for analysis or discussion, keep returning to the core question: where are the charges, and which rights attach to that exact offense at this exact moment? That’s the compass that will guide you through similar scenarios, with more clarity and less noise.