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.
The case prosecuted under the court of Appeal of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen v Danny Lalumiere, in 2011, was intended to appeal the conviction of counseling to commit murder. The appellant argued that the life sentence was not appropriate and was outside the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses. This is an example of a case where legal guilt was used to provide a conviction. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of a psychiatrist doctor, Dr. Pallandi, who provided a profile of the accused and concluded that the appellant was pathologically predisposed to commit an offense. The appellate court ruled against the Crown’s decision at the trial, stating that the appellant lacked moral culpability for his offenses and therefore the sentence was not deserved.
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.
A mental health expert in a criminal trial may offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense PA rules of evidence adopted the FRE 704(A) which states that an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (704(a)). PA rules of evidence does not adopt FRE 704B. However, PA courts have ruled that expert testimony, which concerns a defendant's mental capacity to form the type of specific intent a conviction for murder of the first degree requires, significantly advance the inquiry as to the presence or absence of an essential element of the crime, resulting in relevant testimony. (Commonwealth v. Walzack). In this criminal case a mental health expert is prepared to offer an opinion on the whether the defendant was insane at the time of the offense.
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).
By claiming insanity a defendant has stated that he or she did not know the action was wrong and could not fully comprehend the results of this action. Kuersten then supplies the reader with more details of a particular case, the Reagan shooting, by stating how the depositions from a Neurologists and a Psychiatrist's benefited the case, permitting the judge and jury to have a more scientific understanding of the evidence. “The shooter’s brain has relatively enlarged sulci and ventricles, signifying shrinkage and decay. A psychiatrists testifies that these characteristics are associated with Schizophrenia.” With this knowledge about the defendant's brain jurors may be leaning towards the insanity plea with sympathetic views towards the defendant's actions.
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 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).
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
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
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
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.