In the case of Fare versus Michael C., the question at hand is whether a juvenile defendant requesting to speak with his probation officers was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The important issue was to dissect rather Michael C. requesting to have his probation officer present was equivalent to an attorney representation. When informed that this was not possible, he waived his rights and made admissions. In 1979, police officers arrested sixteen-year-old Michael C. involving him in a murder that occurred during a robbery in the victim's home. Since the age of twelve, Michael had been on probation and had a long criminal offense background. He was arrested and brought to the Van Nuys, California police station for …show more content…
He was informed that he has the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation and the interrogation will be recorded. Michael declined his right to have an attorney present. He agreed to be interrogated by the police officers without having an attorney present. During questioning, he produced sketches and made incriminating statements that linked him to the murder.
While on trial for murder at Juvenile Court, Michael requested to suppress his sketches and statements due to the denial to speak to his probation officer during questioning constituted an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent based on the Burton case. The California appellate court denied his motion, concluding that he had waived his right to remain silent during interrogation. On appeal, the California Supreme Court reversed the decision, concluding that Michael’s request to have his probation officer present constituted a per se invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights just as if he had requested an attorney. Justice Harry A. Blackmun reversed the state decision based on the state law that requires probation officers to represent the interests of juveniles. He
Kaelea Tullly Moran v. Burbine Case When detained by the Police in Cranston, Rhode Island for breaking and entering Brian Burine was immediately given his Miranda Rights and he denied his right to a lawyer. Though the entire process the piece seemed to have obtained evidence they Mr. Burbine had committed a murder in near by providence Rhode Island. He confessed to the breaking and entering and tot the murder when he waved his rights. Because Mr. Burbine’s sister knew he had an appointment with a certain lawyer she called his office but he specifically was not available but his partner was.
Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.
I never knew lawyers and judges talked openly about a case in front of the public. Tyrone Taylor’s lawyer public defender Richard E. Rydelek wanted to make sure nothing was going to be asked to self-incriminate his self from his rights of the Fifth Amendment. After that agreement was set, two policemen retrieved already incarcerated from behind the doors of the judge chambers. Once Tyrone Taylor sat down his lawyer Richard E. Rydelek wanted to guarantee in front of the judge again that nothing would be asked to self-incriminate his client. Judge Green then asked defense lawyer
Scarpelli had filed the writ based upon an allegation of a denial of his right to due process under the Constitution (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, n.d.). The district court agreed that revoking Scarpelli’s probation without a hearing was in fact a denial of his due process right. John Gagnon, Warden of the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, appealed this decision all the way to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States, where the district court’s ruling was upheld each time. Upon reaching the United States Supreme Court, there were two questions at hand: Is a previously sentenced probationer entitled to a hearing when their probation is revoked and is that individual entitled to representation by an attorney for the hearing? (Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
Father further argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold Mother in contempt for violating the circuit court’s order with regard to father’s visitation of the minor children. Further, Father alleges that the circuit court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to satisfy his child support obligation. For the reasons that follow, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in failing to find mother in contempt. Further, we hold the circuit court did not err in finding Father to be in contempt. A.
He was then captured and put into the San Francisco jail and was put on trial
The legal questions in this case are: Did the stop and frisk of Christina 's violate her 4th Amendment rights? Did the search of Christina violate her 4th Amendment rights? Should the evidence taken be suppressed? These questions will be answered by applying to the facts of Martinez’s case to the precedent of Terry v. Ohio. According to the Terry v. Ohio precedent a police may perform a frisk without probable cause under the following circumstances.
He was fired from the police force(Hamm). He later pled guilty and paid a $500 fine. From the time of his arrest he was
To ensure that your rights are protected under the United States Constitution, the Miranda warning must be read to you upon an arrest. Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old murder suspect, was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with a shooting of his brother-in-law, about 11 days prior. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but was released after making no statement and had his lawyer obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. In police custody, Escobedo confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim. He was not advised of his right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment, and police interrogated Escobedo for several hours, while repeatedly denying his request to consult with
In June of 1964 in Gila County, Arizona, 15 year old Gerald Francis Gault was taken into custody by police for allegedly making obscene, harassing phone calls (In re Gault, n.d.). Gault claimed that a friend, Ronald Lewis, had made the harassing phone calls to a neighbor and that he was not involved in any way. Gault had already been placed on probation for a prior offense. After being taken into custody, Gault’s parents were not notified of his status by law enforcement officials(In re Gault, n.d.). Instead, Gault’s mother located him at the juvenile detention center, but was not allowed to take him home.
However, the boy’s parents were not contacted, and he was not told of his rights, although the Miranda case decision authorizes authorities to tell alleged suspects of their rights, such as the right to remain silent or to have access to a lawyer. Although the young boy confessed to the crime, when he was given a lawyer, they sought to suppress the confession because J.D.B wasn’t aware of his
In the Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T. L. O., “TLO” (Tracy Lois Odem) had her pursed check by the school’s vice principal because a teacher had caught her smoking inside the girl’s bathroom. TLO then was convicted of dealing and use of illicit drugs discovered during the search. She later fought the search and presented this case to the New Jersey Juvenile Court. The court found her guilty of delinquency, but TLO repealed and the court reversed this decision and asked the Supreme Court to review the case. This case shows how controversial the Fourth Amendment can be but it also reveals that in certain cases that searches against students can be unreasonable and therefore violating their constitutional rights.
A man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was taken to custody in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. Then was sentenced 20-30 years in jail. He was interrogated for two hours by two police men, every individual should have their own rights to ask and answer questions unless told to Mirandize by a police man or the judge. Ernesto was being asked questions during the interrogation and the thing you’re supposed to do when they ask you questions is answer the questions, so Ernesto should have the right to talk during the interrogation. Ernesto didn’t know he should have a lawyer present during court when they discussed about his case of kidnapping and rape.
This paper is to help show how sometimes judges can be Bias or inherent in the amount of bail set and other restrictions for pre-trial release while showing the concept of bail what can be done to prevent arbitrary and potentially prejudiced decisions from being made in the courtroom when it comes to bail by the judge, Also discuss the pros and cons of private vs. public defense. Introduction This paper will show the pros and cons of pre-release and define pre-trail release and bond, arbitrary. bond types also look into the factors of bail amounts a judge looks at to determine how much the defendant’s bail is and a few ways to prevent arbitrary and potentially Prejudice decisions from being made in the court by judges.
Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court Introduction Children represent the future. They are greatest resources and the hope for a much better tomorrow. In the other side, some people think that youngsters invoke concern, since some kids lack self-control, ethics and morals. Those kids usually ended up in our criminal justice system.