Four separate cases involving factual situations were consolidated because they presented the same constitutional question. In each case, the defendants were prosecuted, made to confess and sign a statement of admission of guilt. Defendants argued that they were not warned of their constitutional rights before interrogations therefore they were violated of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. To discuss: If constitutional rights of the defendants were violated.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 6, Problem 10CP

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

Four separate cases involving factual situations were consolidated because they presented the same constitutional question. In each case, the defendants were prosecuted, made to confess and sign a statement of admission of guilt. Defendants argued that they were not warned of their constitutional rights before interrogations therefore they were violated of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

To discuss: If constitutional rights of the defendants were violated.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

discuss the concept of the effective assistance of counsel, why the Court looks at the concept of ineffective assistance of counsel, and what the defendant must prove in order for the court to determine if the defendant lacked the effective assistance of counsel.

In the case, Zankel v. United States (You Be the Judge in textbook section 28-2c), one of the government's main arguments against liability was that: 1) Dreyer had permission to drive the government's car, but was off duty at the time of the accident. 2) Dreyer was commuting to work at the time of the accident and was, therefore, not within the scope of employment when it happened. 3) Zankel was contributorily negligent, relieving both Dreyer and the government of liability. 4) Dreyer was following all of the applicable traffic laws at the time of the accident.

John Clark purchased a paintball gun at a pawn shop and then participated in a community sport of shooting paintball guns at cars. While John and his friend were riding around their small town with their paintball guns, they spotted Chris and shot his car. Chris Rico then aimed his Brass Eagle paintball gun at the car John was riding in, but instead hit John in the eye. John required surgery on his eye that even- ing and filed suit against Brass Eagle under a theory of strict tort liability. Brass Eagle responded by stat- ing that its gun was not defective and that the young men had ignored warnings about the need to wear eye protection when using the guns. John said he purchased his gun used and was not given all the packaging and instructions. Brass Eagle says that its gun was not defective and that it functioned as it was supposed to. John says the guns are inherently dan- gerous. Who should be responsible for the injury? Are paintball guns defective if they can harm indivi- duals?…