Case Study 3: Confessions And Admissions After A Requ 246721

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

Case Study 3: Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer A suspect is apprehended in a department 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 Martinez arrives at the department store approximately 15 minutes later. Officer Martinez takes a statement from the security guard and views the in-store camera film of the shoplifting incident.

Officer Martinez 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. Six 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 1- to 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. Support your opinion with specific case law or contemporary cases. Use at least three quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other similar websites do not qualify as academic resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: This course requires the use of new Strayer Writing Standards (SWS ). The format is different than other Strayer University courses. Please take a moment to review the SWS documentation for details. Be typed, double-spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow SWS or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student's name, the professor's name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length. The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: Research and analyze procedures governing the process of arrest through trial. Critically debate the constitutional safeguards of key amendments with specific attention to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. Explain key law enforcement regulatory procedures and rules and requirements of law enforcement in the evidence collection phase. Explain and debate fundamental Supreme Court cases associated with criminal procedure. Use technology and information resources to research issues in the criminal procedure. Write clearly and concisely about the criminal procedure using proper writing mechanics.

Paper For Above instruction

The case described involves complex constitutional issues related to the rights of individuals during criminal procedure, particularly focusing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, and the jurisprudence surrounding these protections. To analyze whether the suspect’s confession is admissible, it is necessary to understand the relevant constitutional amendments, the application of the Edwards rule, and pertinent case law.

Constitutional Amendments in Context

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution plays a crucial role in protecting suspects from self-incrimination. It states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This amendment ensures that individuals are protected from coercive interrogation practices that could lead to involuntary confessions. The landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that law enforcement officers must inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, thereby reinforcing the Fifth Amendment’s protections. In the scenario, the suspect clearly invoked his right to have an attorney when he stated, "No, I would like a lawyer," triggering the protections under Miranda and the Fifth Amendment.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel during criminal prosecutions. It ensures that accused persons have the assistance of legal counsel for their defense. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right as essential to a fair trial. Once a suspect requests a lawyer, law enforcement must cease interrogation until the lawyer is present, as mandated by the Edwards v. Arizona (1981) decision. This case clarified that once a suspect invokes their right to counsel, police are generally barred from initiating further interrogation unless the suspect's lawyer is present or the suspect voluntarily initiates contact.

The 14th Amendment, which incorporates these rights against the states, ensures that constitutional protections are applicable across all jurisdictions within the United States, providing due process rights to individuals facing criminal charges.

The Edwards Rule and Its Application

The Edwards rule stems from the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Arizona (1981). It states that once a suspect has invoked their right to counsel, law enforcement officers cannot proceed with interrogations until a lawyer is present, unless the suspect initiates further communication or waived their rights voluntarily in a manner that is knowing and intelligent. In the situation at hand, after initially requesting a lawyer, the suspect was not subjected to further interrogation until six hours later, when the detective re-read the Miranda warning. Despite the suspect's later decision to speak and confess, the critical issue is whether the confession was obtained after a valid waiver of rights.

Since the suspect previously asserted the right to counsel, any subsequent interrogation must comply with the Edwards rule. If police did not adequately cease interrogation after the request for a lawyer, then the confession could be deemed inadmissible under established constitutional principles.

Admissibility of the Suspect’s Confession

Evaluating the admissibility of the suspect's confession to the detective involves analyzing whether the interrogation adhered to constitutional protections, especially regarding the Edwards rule. The key issue is whether the suspect knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights when he chose to speak six hours after the initial Miranda warnings and after invoking his right to counsel.

Empirical case law emphasizes that a valid waiver must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Edwards explicitly prohibits reinitiating interrogation without legal counsel once the right is invoked, unless the suspect initiates the contact. In Michigan v. Mosley (1975), the Court allowed some questioning after a suspect invoked his rights, provided the questions were about different crimes or different issues. However, in this case, the nature of the questioning and whether the suspect voluntarily re-engaged in the conversation are central concerns.

Furthermore, in Oregon v. Bradshaw (1983), the Court held that whether a suspect's statement is admissible depends on whether the police properly honored the right to counsel and whether the subsequent communication was initiated by the suspect and made knowingly and voluntarily. If the detective in this scenario re-interviewed the suspect after the six-hour interval, and the suspect voluntarily agreed to speak, then the confession could be admissible. However, if law enforcement failed to respect the suspect’s earlier invocation of his rights, the confession would likely be suppressed.

Given the details, it appears that the prosecutor’s case hinges on whether the suspect fully and knowingly waived his rights after previously invoking his right to counsel. If the waiver was made voluntarily and with an understanding of the rights waived, the confession could be admissible under the principles established in Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) and supported by the more recent Supreme Court decisions.

Conclusion

In summary, the constitutional protections under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments significantly influence the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases. The Edwards rule underscores the necessity of respecting a suspect’s invocation of their right to counsel. In this case, if law enforcement failed to honor the suspect’s request for a lawyer and continued interrogation without proper waiver, the confession would likely be inadmissible. Conversely, if the suspect voluntarily and knowingly reinitiated communication after the appropriate rights were reaffirmed, then the confession might be considered legally obtained. Ultimately, courts balance the rights invoked and the circumstances of the waiver to determine admissibility, as demonstrated in leading cases such as Edwards v. Arizona, Oregon v. Bradshaw, and Michigan v. Mosley.

References

• Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S.. 477 (1981).
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975).
• Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983).
• Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).
• Carpenter, C. (2018). Criminal Procedure: Investigation and Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schmalleger, F. (2020). Criminology and Criminal Justice. Pearson.
• American Bar Association. (2022). Criminal Justice Standards on Confessions and Admissions.
• Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436
• FindLaw. (2023). Rights of Criminal Defendants. Retrieved from https://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-procedure/rights-of-criminal-defendants.html