Criminal Law Assignment

The legal question in which the U.S. Supreme Court resolved in this case was whether or not statements made by an individual under custodial police interrogation are admissible against him. Additionally, the focus was also placed on the issue of whether procedures that assure the individual is granted his privilege (5th Amendment) not to be compelled to incriminate himself

Fundamental to the Scottish legal system is discovering the truth. In Scotland, a defendant has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty . The burden of proof lies with the Crown, who must prove their case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. From the very beginning of the criminal process - the arrests of the suspect - until the very end - the conviction of the defendant - the state are empowered with many rights, such as the power to detain , which assist them in reaching the truth. Although the state are provided with these rights, there are limitations placed on them in the form of the rights of the defendant, such as the right to remain silent or the right to defend themself either in person or through legal

Even if you are taken in for questioning, everyone has a right to silence and doesn’t have to speak if they don’t want to.

Two important legal cases have given employees specific rights during investigatory interviews. The case, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), gave rise to employees’ Weingarten rights: Employees that face disciplinary action, or questioned about matters that could lead to disciplinary actions against them are entitled to their Weingarten rights. In the case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Garrity Rule was established. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to order police officers to answer questions under threat of losing their jobs, and then to use the answers to incriminate them. These two rights are important for employees to know

ISSUE: (1) The police department continued with the interrogations process that led to incriminating statements without reading the defendant’s rights.

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

In conclusion, the Fifth Amendment privilege against Self-Incrimination only gives people the right to refuse to testify to the government if such testimony will incriminate them of a crime. Law enforcement cannot force the defendant to make any testimonial that can be used as evidence that he/she is guilty of the crime. It does not allow the right to refuse other physical evidence such as handwriting, to speak certain words, fingerprints, blood samples, and tissue samples or to refuse to stand in a police lineup even if these compelled documents contain incriminating evidence. Unless any of the documents is private meaning unknown to the government, the act of the defendant producing these documents can implicate a violation of the Fifth Amendment right.

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled on four separate cases that involved custodial interrogations. In each circumstance the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement investigators. In all of these cases, the interrogation took place in a secluded room that was totally closed off from the outside world. During all of these interrogations the suspects were never provided any form of notification about their right to counsel or their right to remain silent. As a result of these interrogations, three verbal admissions and one signed written admission were secured and admitted at their individual trials. In all of these cases the Supreme Court affirmed one case and reversed the three other case rulings. As a result, the Supreme Court rule that being told that you have the right to remain silent before an interrogation is an absolute right. They also ruled having legal counsel present before interrogation is an absolute right. This watershed Supreme Court decision changed the practice of law enforcement interrogation in very specific and positive ways.

It was insisted upon as a defensive weapon of society and society's patriots against laws and proceedings that did not have the sanction of public opinion. In all the cases that have made the formative history of this privilege and have lent to it its color, all that the accused asked for was a fair trial before a fair and impartial jury of his peers, to whom he should not be forced by the state or sovereignty to confess his guilt of the fact charged. Once before a jury, the person accused needed not to concern himself with the inferences that the jury might draw from his silence, as the jurors themselves were only too eager to render verdicts of not guilty in the cases alluded

In the juvenile court proceedings, Michael filed a motion to suppress the statements on the basis that his request to see his probation officer had been denied, therefore invoking his right against self incrimination. Michael argued that this request was the same as requesting an attorney. The Court

in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,

“(a) Before he is interrogated, a person suspected of a criminal offense must be warned of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel; (b) counsel, including appointed counsel if necessary, must be made available during interrogation; and (c) the suspect may waive both counsel and his right to remain silent by an explicit statement to that effect after warning.” (Elsen, S. H., & Rosett, A.1967, p.646)

The familiar phrases that have become well known by many citizens, regardless if one has been taken into custody or not are taken from a ruling in a landmark case, Miranda v. Arizona. According to Scribd website online, some of the contents contained within the Miranda warnings are, “.…‘you have the right to remain silent, anything you

Privilege against comparative self-incrimination is the third procedural protection in the Fifth Amendment. This clause states the right not to “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against” (Cassell and Stith) oneself. Most Americans know this clause as the right to take the Fifth. The Supreme Court has a good and natural understanding of these words: the defendant in criminal case cannot be compelled to testify-that is, she can’t be called to the stand and thereafter be held in contempt of court (usually leading to immediate imprisonment) (Cassell and Stith). This clause was recently put into question by congress members themselves. On April 10, 2014 the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold former Internal

The history of the privilege against self-incrimination is one filled with contention and complication. Mclnerney divided PSI into three distinct sub-rights that are rather concise and well explained. First, the privilege against self-incrimination afforded to witnesses in criminal, civil or non-judicial investigative proceedings; secondly, the right of a defendant not to give evidence at trial; and thirdly, the right to silence of a suspect in the