Case Study 3: Confessions And Admissions After A Requ 137256

Case Study 3 Confessions And Admissions After A Request For A Lawyerd

Case Study 3: Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer Due Week 8 and worth 100 points A suspect is apprehended in a large-chain grocery store by the security guard. The suspect is placed in handcuffs and taken to the manager’s office. The police are called and advised of the situation. Officer Jones arrives at the store approximately 12 minutes later. Officer Jones takes a statement from the security guard and views the in-store camera film of the shoplifting incident.

Officer Jones places the suspect under arrest, reads the suspect the Miranda warnings, and asks the suspect if he would like to make a statement. The suspect replies, “No, I would like a lawyer.” The suspect is then transported to the local jail and booked. Five (5) hours later, the suspect is interviewed by a detective who again reads him the Miranda warning. The detective then asks the suspect if he would like to talk. The suspect says, “Yes.” He eventually confesses to the crime. Write a one to two (1-2) page paper in which you: Identify and discuss the constitutional amendments that would relate to this situation. Discuss how the Edwards Rule is related to this situation. In your opinion, determine if the suspect’s confession to the detective is admissible. Use at least two (2) quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify as academic resources.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario described involves significant constitutional considerations grounded in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the rights of a suspect during criminal proceedings. These amendments protect an individual's rights against self-incrimination and ensure the right to legal counsel, respectively. Additionally, the Edwards rule plays a crucial role in determining the admissibility of confessions obtained after a suspect has invoked their right to legal counsel.

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," inherently protecting individuals from self-incrimination (U.S. Const. amend. V). In this scenario, the suspect explicitly states, “No, I would like a lawyer,” after being read Miranda warnings. This indicates the invocation of their Fifth Amendment right to counsel, which prohibits further interrogation until an attorney is present (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Therefore, any subsequent confession obtained without the presence of a lawyer could be considered a violation of the suspect’s constitutional rights.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel during criminal prosecutions. Once a suspect asserts the right to an attorney, law enforcement must cease questioning until the attorney is present, unless the suspect initiates further conversation. The timing and circumstances of the suspect's statement—initial refusal and subsequent confession hours later—are significant. The initial statement, made right after arrest, seems to be protected, but the later statements could be challenged if the suspect’s rights were not properly reinstated or if coercive tactics were employed.

The Edwards rule, originating from Edwards v. Arizona (1981), establishes that once a suspect has invoked their right to counsel, police cannot initiate further interrogation until counsel is provided or the suspect reinitiates conversation. In this case, the fact that the second confession occurred five hours after the suspect invoked the right to counsel raises the question of whether law enforcement properly reinitiated contact or whether the confession was obtained in violation of Edwards. Since the detective read the Miranda rights again and the suspect voluntarily chose to talk, it suggests compliance with Edwards, assuming procedural safeguards were followed correctly.

In my opinion, if law enforcement did not demonstrate clear reinitiation of contact by the suspect and failed to adhere strictly to the Edwards rule, then the confession might be considered inadmissible. However, if the detective properly read the Miranda warnings and the suspect voluntarily decided to speak, the confession could be admissible. Courts generally favor respecting the rights of the accused; thus, any ambiguity or procedural flaws could lead to suppression of the evidence. Ultimately, the admissibility hinges on the precise manner in which law enforcement adhered to constitutional protocols and precedent.

References

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
• Chemerinsky, L. (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies. Wolters Kluwer.
• LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., & King, N. J. (2012). Criminal Procedure (5th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
• Schmalleger, F. (2017). Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction. Pearson.
• Horange, B. (2021). Rights of the Accused and Police Procedures. Journal of Law & Crime.
• Harvard Law Review. (2018). The Right to Counsel and Miranda Rights. Harvard Law Review, 131(4), 1063-1084.
• American Bar Association. (2020). Protecting Rights During Criminal Justice Proceedings. ABA Journal.
• National Institute of Justice. (2022). Confessions and the Law: Standards and Challenges. NIJ Publications.
• Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Fifth Amendment. Cornell Law School.