Juvenile Interrogations Must Be Recorded Rules Wisconsin Supreme Court

When this Central park case was made public, the New York Police Department and District Attorney office’s main focus was to solve the case as quickly as possible. When the five teenagers were found “wilding” in the park the night of the women’s death, the police believed they had found the suspects. The police were so confident of the teenager’s guiltiness, the five boys were interrogated of their involvement in the crime. The police used their authority and persuasion to get the boys to confess and promise them that they would go home if they talked. Through strenuous and intense interrogation, the five boys confessed to the killing and rape of the young women on videotape. These confessions were given even though

On June 26, 2015, Mr. Steve Gerecke, an Albuquerque, New Mexico resident, confronted six youths allegedly attempting to burglarize his home after gaining access through the garage with a remote control removed from his wife’s car. The group of youth appeared to have been the same roving mob reported earlier to the police. Witnesses and police reports complained of burglarized homes and cars with the removal credit cards, cellphone, keys, and other valuables. In addition to the burglaries, the group allegedly committed grand the auto. Upon the confrontation of Mr. Gerecke and the youth, an escalation of bravado ensued. At this time, one of the youth armed with pistol, shot Mr. Gerecke multiple times killing him in the driveway of his home. Well

The question of whether or not juveniles have the knowledge or maturity to waive or exercise their rights comes to be very controversial in situations of juvenile interrogations. There is a discrepancy between whether juveniles should be responsible enough to exercise their rights or if they are immature, vulnerable, and all together incapable of understanding the rights they are granted. Many people believe that juveniles should have a parent present during interrogations to guide them through their rights while others believe that juveniles who commit crimes should be held equally as responsible for their actions as adults.

He was interviewed three different instances while at the detention center. At each session he present well kempt, cooperative, wearing no glasses; however, at time he would suck his thumb. At the first session, Kevon was asked if he knew why he was incarcerated. Kevon reported he was incarcerated for armed robbery. He reported he robbed the bank with a gun that was given to him by another juvenile, as well as stating it was wrong and illegal. He stated “I wish I wouldn’t have done it [armed robbery]. Kevon stated he was unsure of what going to happen to him if he was found guilty. He seemed not to have an appreciation of the seriousness of his actions of armed robbery. He was asked if he understood the job of his attorney, the prosecutor, and judge. Kevon stated he is aware of his attorney’s name and what his job was. He also stated he known the prosecuting job was, and knows the judge’s position. Kevon was asked if he was experiencing hallucinations/delusions which he stated no. He presented with no signs of depression or oppositional behavior.

A joint Huntley hearing was held before Justice Thomas Gilligan in 1989. A Huntley hearing determines if the defendant’s statement was made voluntarily to the police. The hearing should have known that the children did not their Miranda right. Without a warning, anything said during the questioning cannot be admissible as evidence at trial. However, the court conclude that the statements were properly and legally gained. There was no hard evidence to link these young men to the crime scene. It is unbelievable that because of these false confessions with no hard evidence linking any of the suspects to the crime scene, that they would be convicted to five to ten years for a crime they did not commit. Confessions that were essentially useless

Documentation of decisions should be collected and be ready for consequent events in the juvenile and criminal justice organizations, even after the minor becomes of age. The length of time the records should rest on the severity of previous crimes. Allowing juvenile records to be electronically available needs more than assembling and running record data. Few states want electronic data systems, and others may need a modification in their regulations. Quantities of recognized works are complex, and

In Kent v. United States, Morris Kent was arrested and charged with housebreaking, robbery, and rape. Kent was held at a juvenile detention facility for almost a week after admitting the charges then was transferred to an adult criminal court. Kent was entitled to a hearing, which he did not receive, access by his counsel to the social records, probation or similar reports and a statement of the reasons for the Juvenile Court’s decision. The appendix to the Kent decision contains criteria for states to use in deciding whether to transfer juveniles to adult criminal court

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” These are the words every juvenile hears as they are being taken into custody. Many juveniles do not understand or misinterpret the Miranda warning they are given. Juvenile are treated with a lesser degree of harshness from wording to punishment when dealing with law enforcement in comparison to adults. But while being interrogated, in some states juveniles are treated the same as adults once they waive their Miranda rights. Juveniles giving false confessions due to the psychological techniques that are used on adults is a concern of the juvenile courts. The severity and sort of the questions causes them to admit crimes that they didn’t commit because they may be trying to give the answer that they think the interrogator desires. This paper will discuss how interrogation worked before many important cases took place and Miranda rights were placed. Next, the type of techniques police officers use when interrogating a juvenile currently. Lastly, the Reid Method on interrogations’ and the reasons behind juveniles giving false confessions.

Bartol and Bartol (2012) mentions adolescents have difficulty with understanding their constitutional rights; as a result many will confess to crimes they did not commit. Many false statements are the result of skilled psychological strategies employed by law enforcement. With this in mind, police interrogation increases higher level of stress with adolescent than adults. The forensic psychologist would assess the adolescent to ensure they fully understood their rights under the Miranda Law. In the case of Butler it clearly illustrated that he did not know his right due to he spoke with the detectives without having counsel present, as well as they failng to get him proper counsel.

after being charged with the rape and beating of a twenty eight year old woman who was jogging in Central Park in New York around 1989. They were interrogated using the Reid technique, all being minors, with no legal counsel present, and after being held for thirty hours in a small, and dim interrogation room. Pressured, intimidated, and exhausted the young teens confessed and were found guilty sentence to forty-one years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Victims or racial conflicts in the 1990 law enforcement, judges, and jury were fast to sentence them and jailed without any proper evidence allowed in the hearing. They were sentenced as adults, being adolescent, becoming nervous by being in jail, and intimidated by police; they

Throughout time children have been sole witnesses of crimes either committed to them or in their presence. Leaving forensic interviewers with the burden of withdrawing reliable information in the hopes that these children can remember. Forensic interviewers are not completely aware of children’s capacities and limitations when it comes to communication, and therefore are faced to try to withhold as much information through techniques that will elicit testimony.

Since the 1970s, the plight of victims in the criminal justice system has become of significant interest and now plays a prominent role in the construction of domestic and international laws. In particular, in 1999, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA hereafter) radically transformed the traditional adversarial trial model for receiving evidence from vulnerable and child witnesses by advocating a panoply of special measures to be utilised during criminal court proceedings. The purpose of such measures is to enhance the quality of children’s testimony through the use of screens to block the view of the perpetrator (s.23), the removal of wigs and gowns (s.26), help of intermediaries (s.29) and the use of video links to give evidence (s.21). Most significantly, following the recommendations in the 1989 report of the Home Office Advisory Group on video evidence - the 'Pigot Report ', s. 27 and 28 YJCEA made provisions for pre-recorded cross-examination-in-chief and pre-recorded cross-examination respectively. After all, the cross-examination of a child who is a victim of a crime, particularly a sexual crime, is arguably one of the most challenging courtroom ordeals. However, s. 28 of the YJCEA has never been brought into force and still remains to be “the most controversial of all” measures within the 1999 Act (Hoyano & Keenan, 2010). As a result, although children may be given the opportunity to pre-record the first part of their evidence, they must still

In the process of police and law enforcement officers attempting to divulge the truth in matters consequently resulting in the possible or likely incarceration of an offender, there is most certainly going to be an instance of deception by the offender or possible suspect in efforts to free themselves from any wrongdoing or in attempts to conceal the facts of the case. Due to this grand scheme of deceit, the courts have ruled in favor of officers to do the same in efforts to expose and/or conjure the truth from an uncooperative prevaricator. In the utilization of this technique, officers are empowered with the ability to use their own trained approach to deceive the interviewee into complying with the officer’s investigation and providing them

When an investigator is to being interrogation of a juvenile suspect that is believed to be involved in criminal gang activity, the investigator must follow a defined set of policies to ensure the protection of the juvenile and the criminal case that could follow. While these juveniles are suspected of committing a crime, they are still juveniles based on their age. Juvenile suspects are permitted to speak with their parents prior to the interrogation beginning; however the parents will not be allowed in the interrogation room. Interrogation should not begin until an attorney is present that can advise the juvenile being questioned or object to the line of questioning that they are being subjected to. When the individual is being Mirandize,

Frank Sterling was a 25-year-old male without a criminal record who was falsely accused of murder of an elderly women who was killed in 1988 in Rochester, NY. Being that Sterling did not have criminal record he quickly waived his Miranda rights. Sterling was a suspect and was interrogated alone without a lawyer. Sterling had just worked a 36-hour shift dealing with truck driving and very tired during the interrogation which stated 7:00 am and lasted for 12 hours. The investigator officer uses a “relaxation” technique which the investigator laid down beside Sterling and held his hand while breathing deeply. During these sessions the investigator told sterling about three main details, the location of the murder, the clothing, and mentioning