Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement. When a private citizen either by his own initiative or at the request of law enforcement gathers evidence with the intent of furthering criminal prosecution, Miranda warnings must be given. A. Mr. Lake was acting as an agent of law enforcement when he questioned Ms. Greene. There is no clear rule for when a private person is acting as an agent of law enforcement. Every instance of agency must be individually examined. The Fifth Circuit provided a general test for examining agency: 1) whether the government knew or acquiesced in the conduct and 2) whether the party intended to assist law enforcement efforts. United States v. Grimes, 244 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2001). In Ferguson v. City of Charleston the state hospital was dealing with a large number of prospective mothers with narcotics …show more content…
Smith a psychiatrist interviewed the defendant to determine his competency to stand trial. 451 U.S. 454 (1981). The prosecution called the psychiatrist during the sentencing hearing. Id. at 456 He testified, based on his pretrial interview, the defendant was a sociopath, posed a danger to society, was likely to repeat offenses, and was not going to be rehabilitated. Id. Based on that testimony, the jury returned the death penalty. The court ruled the psychiatrist became “like an agent of the state recounting unwarned statements made in post arrest custody.” Id. at 468. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to Miranda warnings.
On October 1, 2003, Dawna Cantrell was arrested and charged with the murder of her husband and two counts of tampering with evidence. Ms. Cantrell’s competency was questioned after evaluation by the defense expert, Dr. Eric Westfried. After subsequent evaluation by the state’s expert, Dr. Edward Siegel, both experts found that Ms. Cantrell had a “persecutory delusional disorder” and that her mental illness precluded her from assisting her attorney in her defense. The trial court found her incompetent to stand trial and ordered a dangerousness evaluation.
Throughout this case the supreme court addressed four other cases that involved custodial interrogations. Issues involving this case is whether or not the Fifth Amendment, which gives us the right to self-incrimination, is being violated when someone is put under arrest and is brought in for the purpose of interrogation and is not informed of his rights to not speak
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.
Policing was forever changed in 1966 after the deciding factor of the case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case also addressed three other cases involving custodial interrogations, the cases were Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery, after he was identified by the victim. Miranda was not informed of his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination, and also his 6th amendment right to have a counsel. Miranda was then interrogated by the Phoenix Police where he was arrested for two hours, and allegedly confessed to the crimes which was recorded by the police.
This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion. Rule of law: An individual cannot be brought to a police station and fingerprinted without probable cause or a warrant. The courts compared the cases of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. (Investigatory detentions).
The limit of confidentiality according to American Psychological Association (2018), “should cover the pertinent limitations on confidentiality, including limitations where applicable in group, marital, and family therapy or in organizational consulting, and the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their services.” Also, the limit of confidentiality should cover the permission for electronic recording of interviews and secure it from clients and patients (American Psychological Association, 2018). Identify the factors that might impede competency restoration. The success of competency restoration depends on the defendant responsiveness and to medical treatment if he or she is diagnosed with mental disorders that can render a suspect incompetence to stand trial as; such disorders might include Schizophrenia and the other psychotic disorders.
The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, the right of any person accused of a crime to not testify against himself. This amendment has been a part of the U.S. Constitution since 1791. However, it was not until the 1960s that law enforcement were forced to really take this Constitutional Right seriously. In 1963 a man named Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrest for robbery.
Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).
If a person choses to waive their rights, they will not have the legal consultation of an attorney to help guide them through the interrogation process. With the flood of emotions that the suspect may be feeling, there are
Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this
Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).
The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate
This piece of the novel is extremely important. It shows the reality of the situation. It is important to the readers to understand that every family has flaws. Capote goes on about how loved and cherish the Clutter’s are and how well known they are. It proves to society that even the most popular, the richest, the luckiest, and the prettiest people out there do not have perfect lives.
I saw the jury sitting at a long table. “Good morning,” I said nervously. “Today I am here to speak with you about the current situation of the suspect’s mental health. The suspect has had violent outbursts, and even believed hallucination. I believe that this man is not well.