Must Be Original Work No Plagiarism Case Study 3 Confessions ✓ Solved

Must Be Original Work No Plagiarismcase Study 3 Confessions And Admi

Must Be Original Work No Plagiarism Case Study 3: Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer

A suspect was apprehended in a large-chain grocery store by security guards, subsequently placed in handcuffs, and taken to the store manager's office. The store contacted law enforcement, and Officer Jones arrived approximately 12 minutes later. Officer Jones made a statement collection from the security guard and reviewed in-store camera footage of the shoplifting incident. Following this, Officer Jones placed the suspect under arrest, advised him of his Miranda rights, and inquired if he wished to make a statement. The suspect responded, “No, I would like a lawyer.” The suspect was then transported to the local jail, where he was booked.

Five hours post-arrest, a detective interviewed the suspect again, reading him the Miranda warning once more. The detective asked if he would like to talk, to which the suspect replied affirmatively, ultimately confessing to the crime. This paper explores the constitutional amendments pertinent to this scenario, examines the relevance of the Edwards Rule, and evaluates the admissibility of the suspect’s confession.

Analysis of Relevant Constitutional Amendments

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution plays a pivotal role in this case, primarily safeguarding against self-incrimination. It establishes that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (U.S. Const., amend. V). When the suspect initially invoked his right to counsel by stating, “I would like a lawyer,” this constitutional guarantee was activated, requiring law enforcement to respect his request and desist from further questioning until an attorney was present (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).

Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment provides the right to legal counsel during criminal prosecutions. Once the suspect requested legal representation, law enforcement is obligated to cease interrogation until an attorney is present, as upheld in subsequent jurisprudence (Edwards v. Arizona, 1981). These amendments are essential in protecting individual rights during critical stages of criminal proceedings.

The Fourth Amendment also underpins the initial arrest, requiring probable cause and a valid reason for detainment. Since the store security’s apprehension was based on observable shoplifting, and law enforcement’s subsequent actions involved lawful arrest procedures, the Fourth Amendment’s protections are implicated at the outset of this case.

Relevance of the Edwards Rule

The Edwards Rule is a significant Supreme Court doctrine that addresses the issue of subsequent admissions after a suspect requests counsel. Specifically, once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police must cease custodial interrogation until an attorney is present, unless the suspect voluntarily initiates further dialogue (Edwards v. Arizona, 1981). This rule aims to prevent law enforcement from circumventing the suspect's constitutional rights through indirect or continued questioning.

In this case, the suspect initially refused to speak after being Mirandized, requesting a lawyer. Following this, five hours later, the detective re-interviewed him and obtained a confession. Under the Edwards Rule, this subsequent interrogation without initiating by the suspect and without legal counsel present may be deemed unlawfully conducted, rendering the confession potentially inadmissible. The key issue hinges on whether the suspect’s later statement was truly voluntary and whether law enforcement's actions adhered to the protections established by the Edwards Rule.

Admissibility of the Suspect’s Confession

Considering the facts, the most compelling analysis involves whether the later confession is admissible in court. The suspect’s invocation of his right to an attorney is a clear assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights, necessitating a cessation of interrogation until counsel is provided (McNeil v. Wisconsin, 1991). The subsequent re-interview conducted five hours later, after the suspect’s explicit request for legal assistance, appears to violate the Edwards Rule, which requires that law enforcement cease questioning once the suspect invokes the right to counsel.

Although the detective read the Miranda warning again, the critical issue is whether the suspect voluntarily and knowingly resumed communication with law enforcement or was subject to police coercion. Courts tend to scrutinize whether the suspect’s agreement to talk was given voluntarily and whether law enforcement’s conduct was proper. In this scenario, because the suspect initially asserted his right to counsel, and no evidence suggests he initiated further contact, his confession may be considered inadmissible under the Edwards Rule.

However, some courts consider whether the suspect’s statement was made voluntarily and whether the waiver of rights was knowing and intelligent. If the confession was obtained after coercive tactics or in violation of established rights, then it is likely inadmissible. Conversely, if the suspect re-initiated communication independently, the confession might be permitted, but this appears unlikely given the facts provided.

In conclusion, based on the principles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the Edwards Rule, the suspect’s confession obtained during the later interview is likely inadmissible unless proven that law enforcement properly obtained a waiver of rights or that the suspect voluntarily reinitiated communication without coercion.

References

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
• McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991).
• Schmalleger, F. (2019). Criminology: A brief introduction. Pearson.
• Spadafora, J. (2017). Understanding criminal procedure. Routledge.
• LaFave, W. R. (2018). Search and seizure: A treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Aspen Publishers.
• Fisher, G. (2015). Criminal procedure. Foundation Press.
• Harlow, C. (2018). Constitutional law and criminal justice. LexisNexis.
• Shallcross, L. (2020). Law enforcement legal issues. Sage Publications.
• Podgor, E. S. (2021). Constitutional criminal procedure. Wolters Kluwer.