I. Questions Presented
Under Kansas law, did Sara Ryker confess voluntarily under the circumstances when officers questioned her?
1. Does Ryker’s ability to communicate with the outside world upon request weigh in favor of a voluntary confession when she asked to use the phone and the officers told her she had to wait?
2. Do Ryker’s age, intellect, and background support a voluntary confession when she is 20 years old, possesses low intelligence, and has no criminal background?
3. Do the officers’ fairness weigh in favor of a voluntary confession when they interrogated Ryker using threats and intimidating language?
II. Brief Answers
No. Ryker did not confess voluntarily under Kansas case law. Under this case law, to determine voluntariness …show more content…
No. The ability to communicate with the outside world upon request suggests promptness in complying with a request for access to the outside world. A court will likely find that Ryker did not have this ability because the police officers conducting her interrogation were not prompt in granting her request.
2. No. If a person is quite young, possesses lower than average intelligence, and has no criminal background or knowledge of criminal proceedings, it is less likely that they confessed voluntarily. A court will likely find that because Ryker is quite young, possesses lower than standard intelligence, and has no criminal background, it is less likely that her confession was voluntary.
3. No. When officers use threats and coercion to encourage the accused to confess, it is less likely that the accused confessed voluntarily. Because the officers threatened Ryker with physical violence and used coercive tactics against her, a court will likely weigh this factor against …show more content…
In Wakefield, the accused asserted that his confession was involuntary partially because the police officers conducting his interrogation had isolated him from outside help. Id. at 943. However, on the record of the interrogation, when the accused asked if he could use the phone to get in contact with his sister and his girlfriend’s mother, the police officers immediately suggested that they take a break from the interrogation so that he could do so. Id. at 944. The court determined that based on this interaction, the officers had not isolated the accused from the outside world.
The trial court denied these motions and the statements were used at trial. The jury found petitioner guilty of murder and was sentence to a 24-year prison term. On appeal, Petitioner argued that he had not “knowingly and intelligently” waived his 6th amendment right to counsel before he gave his uncounseled post indictment
v. Wood, 2007). The first issue, was took from the position of the Appellant, as well as the Crown on the DRE and if it should have been heard. The Appellant went to state, the trial judge failed to analyze the admissibility of the DRE evidence in accordance with the tests enunciated in R. v. Mohan, 1994, and the DRE evidence should be excluded (R. v. Wood, 2007). The Crown argues that, even though the trial judge’s Reasons for Judgement did not specifically specify the Mohan analysis, her overall ruling shows she followed the guidelines with Mohan. Furthermore, adding the she considered the DRE protocol, ascertained Sergeant Moschansky’s qualifications, and examined the uses of the evidence (R. v. Wood, 2007).
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER In response to the first issue, Marshard explains “my file notes state I met with Mr. Sylvia to explain that the Court would appoint him an attorney to explore his 5th Amendment right and to discuss with him whether he wished to waive or assert that right.” Marshard maintains that she wanted Silvia to know he was a victim in this matter and not a defendant. She states this was important because “(1) the pending clerk’s hearing where charges were being pursued by Mr. Petersen and (2) Mr. Sylvia had often been a defendant when the court appointed him an attorney.” Marshard claims Silvia “does not always appear to accurately grasp the situation.”
Good morning I am Luke Thomsen, I am representing the State of Maycomb on a case about Sheriff Heck Tate’s poor investigation. On two counts we will first hear about his poor investigation in the Tom Robinson V, Mayella Ewell case and in the death of Bob Ewell for we never found out who truly murdered Bob Ewell for Sheriff Heck was too lazy to document it. THE THEME AND THEORY
She concludes that there was an ongoing emergency in Bryant’s case because the perpetrator was in possession of firearm, the motive and his location were unidentified, the crime happened not too far away from where the victim was found, and the crime happened a few minutes before the police officers found the victim. According to Justice Sotomayor, based on Mr. Covington’s condition and statements “[the court] cannot say that a person in [his] situation would have had a ‘primary purpose’ ‘to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution’” (Michigan v. Bryant 29). Also, based on the questions that the police officers asked allows the court to conclude that their primary purpose was to assess an ongoing emergency rather than getting evidence for future prosecution. The court also took into consideration where the interrogation took place to determine if it was formal or not.
Key Facts: On December 18, 1992, two brothers were shot and killed in their Houston home after throwing a party the previous night. Police obtained six shotgun shells from the site and received a description of a potential suspect from a local neighbor. The investigation led the police to Salinas, who willingly agreed to relinquish his shotgun for ballistics testing and to accompany police for further questioning. The interview lasted approximately one hour, where both parties were later in agreement that Salinas was not detained nor was he read Miranda warnings. Salinas answered most questions during the interview, but fell silent when asked if “his shotgun ‘would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder.’”
Justice is a behavior or treatment, the quality of being fair and responsible, the administration of the law or authority and maintain this. Greed is the intese and selfish desire for something, especially wealth or power. In the novel The Rag snd Bone Shop Robert Cormier shows an act of greed while seeking an unfair justice. Trent a well known interrogator plays mind games with 12-year old Jason Dorrant searching for a confession to the murder of a 7-year old girl, Alicia Barlett. In the novel The Rag and Bone Shop, Robert Cormier characterizes Trent as a greedy man who stands for justice.
Anyone that was accused had the choice of either confessing to something they didn't do or to get
This essay will consider whether Robert Solomon should receive a Vye direction at the end of his trial. This will be approached from the defence position and therefore will identify the arguments to support Robert having a Vye direction. Vye directions were established in the case of Vye and are given by the judge when summing up to the jury. There are two limbs to this direction. The first limb relates to the defendant’s credibility and is only available to defendants who made pre-trial statements or give evidence.
Mass hysteria can make people do terrible things. In arthur miller’s the crucible tells the story of mass hysteria in Salem Massachusetts in 1692 where people were being hunting and killing innocent people being accused of being something there not.www.history.com Miller uses this story to tell people that the Rewww.history.comd Scare during the 1950’s is the same mass hysteria as the salem witch trials. Miller was accused of being a communist just like people being accused of witchcraft during the salem witch trials.www.history.com The salem witch trials started in the spring in 1692. The Salem witch trials was started by a 9 year old name betty parris and a 11 year old named Abigail williams.www.history.com A doctor by the name of William
In a 2008 murder case policed locked the mother of the victim, the main suspect, in an interrogation room for several hours. They presented Ms. Trung with false evidence, acted
Heading: - Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 (1984) II. Facts & Procedural History - In September 1976, during the course of ten days, the respondent, Strickland, planned and committed three groups of crimes, including three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. His two accomplices were arrested, and the respondent surrendered to police.
Reasoning: Coerced confessions made under the threat of violence are not admissible in court. The Court’s ruling to suppress the confessions was based on the FBI informant’s guarantee of protection from potential violence or harm. The Court found that “it was fear of physical violence, absent protection from his friend Sarivola, which motivated Fulminante to confess.” The confession was in essence offered under duress. Additionally, without the confessions, would Fulminante have been found guilty?
After more than two years serving time, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Griffin’s conviction and reward the case for a new trail. State v. Griffin, the Court of Appeal apprehended that the trial court erred in denying Griffin’s motion to suppress his confession because it is considered involuntarily confession after the coercion questioning by Detective Strong. On regarding to the second interview, the Court of Appeals apprehended that the trial court erred in permitting the tape and transcript into evidence because Mr. Griffin did not make a valid waiver of his Miranda rights prior to the
To be a good interrogator it requires more than confidence and creativity although it does help, but interrogators are very well trained in the mental tactics of social impact. An interrogators task is to get someone to confess to a crime, but it is not easy. While it isn’t easy for them, sometimes they will end up with confessions from the innocent testifies because of the expertise in psychological manipulation interrogators have. The interrogation process has been manipulated over the years and they are using unethical approaches to gain information or a confession from suspects. But in the law of confessions, it is required that confessions are not coerced but be voluntary so that it is admitted into evidence.