People V Gilbert Case Summary

Miranda Rights are meant to be read to those being detained by police prior to an interrogation about a crime, or when a suspect is taken into custody. A police officer must be careful in the order in which they question the suspect and read the suspect his or her rights. If care is not given to this, the case could turn out in similar fashion to the decision of Fellers v U.S. Two police officers went to the home of John J. Fellers to arrest Fellers because of an indictment for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The officers relayed to Fellers that they wanted to discuss his involvement in the conspiracy and Fellers subsequently admitted he had used methamphetamine and had also associated with some of the others named in the indictment. Fellers was not advised of his Miranda Rights at this time. The officers then proceeded to take Fellers to jail where he received his

In 1966 , Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping , and robbery. The problem was that Miranda was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation and while the two hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to committing the crimes which police recorded without Mirandas Knowledge. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." PBS. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.. Miranda who did not even finish the 9th grade and also is known to have a history of being mentally unstable, who did not have any counsel by his side during the interrogation. In court at his trial the prosecution’s case was focused mainly of his confession and thats about it, no matter what in

“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise

Attorneys representing Fernandez seek to have statements made by Fernandez during police interrogation suppressed. The presiding judge ruled that statements made by Fernandez during police interrogations are not admissible, because Fernandez “Miranda rights” to waive his rights to remain silent and consult an attorney were violated. Sexual battery charges are also dropped against Fernandez for lack

Reasoning: The Court further held that the officers' questioning of the defendants about their reasoning for being at the event during their detention did violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion to question the four defendants. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a

The outline of the Fare v. Michael C. and the facts, issue, and court holding are that a 16-year-old boy was taken into custody by police on suspicion of murder. Respondent Michael C., a juvenile, was under suspicion for murder. Brought to the Van Nuys, California police station for questioning, Michael requested to speak to his probation officer at the beginning of the interrogation. Michael was already on probation with the juvenile courts for things he had done pervious. Also Michael request to speak with his probation officer. The rules of the Miranda states that if a person wishes to remain silent or want to talk to his or her attorney, the questioning office has to cease until the asking person appears. Michael changed his statement and

Gilbert has a code that prohibits displaying outdoor signs without a permit, but 23 categories of signs are exempt. The signs that are exempt are restricted to certain sizes and times that they can be displayed. Petitioners, Good News Community Church Clyde Reed, pastor, posted signs bearing the name of the church and locations and times of services early morning on a Saturday and did not remove them until midday the following Sunday. The church was cited for exceeding time limits of displaying directional signs and for leaving out the dates of the events. Petitioners filed suit, arguing freedom of speech, but their motion was denied – the court declared that the code’s

The opinion stated that the two-step interrogation technique of waiting until the suspect had confessed to relay their Miranda warnings served to render the warning ineffective, so the statements that followed as a result of the strategy were inadmissible. The mere recitation of the Miranda warning

I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins, the arresting officers read Thompkins his Miranda rights and even gave him a copy of the rights after confirming he knew how to read (Mallor, Barnes, Langvardt, Prenkert, & McCroy, n.d., p.157-159). The path of questioning the detective took at the end of the three hour interrogation was a little questionable but in my opinion not against the law. I think by the defendant keeping quiet for the majority of the interviewing does not mean he was invoking his Miranda rights, he should’ve spoken those words in the beginning and the detectives would’ve stopped the interviewing. The defendant Thompkins self-incriminated himself indirectly, by voluntarily making a comment without

The Court found that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to Miranda warnings regardless of the severity of the offense. However, we refuse to adopt McCarty’s argument every detained motorist must be advised of his rights. Questioning at a traffic stop is different from stationhouse interrogation and is more in line with a Terry stop. Nothing in the record indicates McCarty should have been given Miranda warnings prior to being placed under arrest.

Mr. Bob was accused of stealing things from his employer. He was charge of robbery.His employer notice that things were missing. So his employer set up a surveillance camera for evidence because he had probable cause that someone was stealing. The employer also had a witness there to say that someone was missing when Mr. Bob was working so the employer had enough proof to arrest and charge Mr. Bob for stealing. So the arresting officer after review the tapes and the claims arrested Mr.Bob. While arresting the police officer read Mr. Bob his Miranda rights, the right to remain silent, right to an attorney etc . The employer decide to charge Mr.Bob with robbery. Mr. Bob plead not guilty because he was asked to move the stuff to a different place.

Mr. Miranda was convicted in this case and appealed on grounds that he was in police custody and was unaware of his rights before he confessed to the crime. The U.S. Supreme court ruled in favor of Mr. Miranda. This sent a big message to the law enforcement community. The Court held that Miranda’s confession could not be used because it was not voluntary. The police did not make Mr. Miranda confess, but he was in custody, in an interrogation room and was not read his Fifth Amendment rights. The Court also acknowledges that the police always have inherent power when it deals with custody of a suspect and should inform them of their right (Melvin, 2011).

An accused persons acknowledgement that the charge, or an essential part of it, is true. The charter states that anyone who is detained or arrested must be promptly informed of their right to legal counsel before making any statement so any statement taken before the right is told can be excluded as evidence. A statement can be admission or denied. If confession was not voluntary, the judge may reject the evidence. Even if confession is admitted, the jury may reject it or give little weight in reaching decision.

“The bank robbery was a scam too. The bank records show that there was $400,000 in the safe when you closed the night before the robbery. We looked back at the security tapes and the records of the money transport truck. There was $350,000 picked up from your bank, but it was all counterfeit. Somewhere $400,000 is in the bank still. You will be spending the rest of your life behind bars.”

Mr. Knight was not in custody because he knew he could leave after he completed the traffic summons paperwork. To suppress a statement for violations of Miranda rights, the suspect must be in custody of law enforcement officials. Brownlee, 454 F.3d at 4. When in custody, a person is