Police Conviction

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

Bryant was advised he had a warrant for his arrest. Bryant was handcuffed, checked for fit, and double locked. Bryant was secured in the rear seat of my patrol vehicle. Bryant was cooperative and compliant.

Calhoun forwarded me his findings and informed me the incident occurred on Evening Watch, I viewed the incident on Avigilon video and determined a use of force incident report need to be completed in Blue Team. I then notified Sgt. Kizer-Hudson, who was the supervisor over 8NE, and inquired on if she was aware that the use of force incident occurred. She replied, “No.” I proceeded to show Sgt. Kizer-Hudson the video and she stated, “I remember the incident the officers called a non-compliant I responded, but they didn’t tell me about the use of force part.” I replied, what did they tell you?” Sgt. Kizer-Hudson stated, “Officer R. Dunans stated he give Inmate Mitchell verbal commands to return to his cell, inmate Mitchell refused and wanted to speak to a supervisor.” I advised Sgt. Kizer-Hudson the incident wasn’t reported and I found out about the incident when Mitchell’s attorney sent an email about his outcry. I then instructed Sgt. Kizer-Hudson to start a use of force report in Blue Team, and get statements from all officers involved as to why they failed to report the use of force to

Larry was transported by AMR to Chino Valley Community Hospital. At Chino Valley Hospital, Larry claimed that he was Tased and was complaining of pain to his stomach and back. Larry was not Tased by OPD officers. I looked at Larry’s stomach and back and did not see any redness nor any visible injuries. I read Larry his Miranda rights from my department issued Miranda card. He said “yes” to all four questions indicating that he understood them. Under Miranda, Larry told me that today in the morning, his girlfriend, Stephanie Perez, dropped him off at work and they got into an argument. Larry said the argument was over Perez wanting to leave him. I asked Larry if he threatened Perez in anyway and he said no he did not threatened Perez. Larry said today at approximately 1730 hours, he was picked up by Perez from work. Larry said they drove to a check cashing place so he could cash his check. Larry said he and Perez got into an argument. The argument was again about Perez wanting to leave him. Larry said he took the vehicle key from the vehicle and went inside the store, preventing Perez from driving away. I asked him if he saw the police unit. Larry said yes he did however he was scared and did not want to be detained or arrested because he did not do anything wrong. Larry said he several times heard police officers telling him to stop running however he did not want to get arrested. Larry said he

Have you ever been in a situation to try to prove your innocence? And could you save yourself from wrongful convictions? Director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade had produced the movie, Murder in a Sunday morning, in 2001. This movie won the award for best documentary ceremony at this year. De Lestrade’s movie was really helpful to aware public about overwhelming innocent people rights. He showed that how lawyers can save their defendant’s life. The story is about a black American young boy, Brenton Butler, who was accused of murdering a white tourist, Mary Ann Stephens, at a parking lot in Florida. He had been identified as the killer by the victim's husband and later confessed by enforcement of detectives. Polic officers did not investigation completely,

Wrongful convictions can be the result an assortment of conditions that contribute to injustice. Variables include the Brady violations, faulty forensics, weak defense, misleading prosecution, misidentification, lying, false confessions, race and financial resources of the defendant (Gould, J. et al. 2013). Seventy-five percent or more of erroneous convictions have involved mistaken eyewitness identification: (Garrett, 2009). False confessions of innocent people pleading guilty corrupt our system. Furthermore, it must be noted that the American judicial system relies heavily upon a plea-bargaining system, where some may plead guilty as opposed to taking their chances before a jury. States that have a reputation for punitive juries may

The Court determined that the process of interrogation was intimidating enough and in order to counteract this feeling, the suspect must be read his right. The suspect must be read his/her rights before being questioned; in addition, officer is not required to inform the suspect of their rights while placing the suspect under arrest, under the condition that the officers don’t interrogate the suspect in any way.

Police patrolman Lovell sighted the unarmed respondent on the street, arrested him, placed him into his patrol car and read him his Miranda rights. At which time, the defendant chose to invoke his right to remain silent and asked for an attorney.

Officer Jimenez placed Barkes in handcufss and read him his Miranda Warning. Barkes told Officer Jimenez he understood the Miranda Warning. Barkes admitted to Officer Jimenez arguing with Johnson thorough the door earlier that night. Barkes also told Officer Jimenez that during the arguments he kicked in the door without Johnson consent. Barkes told Officer Jimenez that he left after he and Johnson got belligerent but did not give further

Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position.

     You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author

The Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that interrogations are in inherently stressful and pressure the defendant to cooperate based on a lack of knowledge regarding their specific rights during questioning. Because of this finding they concluded officers have a duty to advise the defendant of their rights through the Miranda warning. The requirement is only required when the suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation [7].” The Court focused on the two conditions triggering the need for the Miranda warning because of the impermissibly high risk of coerced confessions [13]. The very nature of in which defendants are questioned alone by law enforcement officers trained in using tactics to “persuade, trick, or cajole

When police officers interrogate a suspect without providing a warning about the Miranda rights, any statement or confession made is considered involuntary and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. The evidence uncovered as a result of

A police must say the order in which they question the suspect and read the suspect her or her righs. of are if not gien then the case turns out to a similar fashion to the decision of Fellers v U.S. Fellers V U.S is when two police officers went to the home of John J, Fellers to arrest him because of an indictment for conspiracy to distrivute methamphetamine. They relayed the Fellers that they wanted to talk about the involvement of the conspiracy and the Fellers admitted he had use meth and also associated with some of the others named in the indictment. Even though the Feller was not advised of the Miranda Rights. The officers still took the Fellers under arrest where he recieved his Miranda Rights.The Fellers case was held before the Supreme Court. The court upheld the Fellers conviction.

There is wrongful conviction when a person who is innocent in the charges leveled against him is found guilty of the offenses and as a result have to serve the penalty for it. There is also wrongful conviction when a person who committed a crime is found innocent due to lack of enough evidence to convict the accomplice and as a result the innocent percent person is convicted. In a nutshell conviction is said to be wrong when an innocent person is found guilty and the guilty person goes free without charges.