MIRANDA RIGHTS

SHOULD THE CONFESSION BE ALLOWED?

Consider the following Scenarios. Have the defendant's Miranda rights been
violated?

1. Benny was arrested by New York Police and charged with the armed robbery
of a taxicab driver. While Benny was in jail waiting for his trial, a New York
undercover officer was placed in Benny's cell. Before the officer asked any
questions, Benny said that he had robbed the cab driver. Benny's statement was
used against him at trial, despite his objection that he was not read his Miranda
Rights, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Should the court admit the
testimonial evidence? Why or Why not?

In Benny’s case, the court should not use the testimonial evidence. When a person is
in custody and subject to interrogation, law enforcement is required to provide a clear
explanation of their Miranda rights. These rights include the right to remain silent, the
warning that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, the
right to an attorney, and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If
law enforcement fails to properly inform a person of their Miranda rights or proceeds
with questioning in a way that violates these rights, any statements or evidence
obtained as a result may be excluded from the trial under the Fifth Amendment. This
exclusionary rule is meant to deter law enforcement from engaging in unconstitutional
practices and protect an individual's constitutional rights. Benny’s said that he robbed
the cab driver before the police had read their Miranda rights.

2. Rhode Island police officers arrested Jared on suspicion of shooting a local

taxicab driver in the head and then burying the body nearby. Jared was read his
Miranda rights and indicated that he wished to speak to a lawyer. On the way to
the station, the police began talking to each other about the murder, while Jared
listened in the back seat. Then, without warning, Jared admitted to the murder.
At his trial, Jared argued that the police had coerced him into admitting to the
murder and that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. Should the court
allow the testimonial evidence?

In Jared’s case, the court should not allow the testimonial evidence. Jared's Fifth
Amendment rights were violated during his transportation to the police station.
Despite indicating their Miranda rights and that he wished to speak to a lawyer, the
police officers continued discussing the murder in Jared's presence, which potentially
influenced his subsequent admission to the crime. This situation raises concerns about
coercion and the violation of Jared's constitutional rights. If Jared's defense argues that
he was forced or pressured into confessing to the murder and that his rights were
violated, the court will examine the circumstances surrounding his admission. They
will consider factors like how much the police talked about the murder in front of
Jared, whether they put any additional pressure on him, and whether he freely and
willingly made the statement.

3. Robert Berkemer was driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone when he saw the
flashing lights of a patrol car behind him. He dutifully pulled over to the side of
the road. The officer approached him and requested that he step outside of the
vehicle. Robert stepped out of the car, and the officer asked him whether or not
he was aware of how fast he was going. In response to the officer's questioning,
Robert admitted that he had been speeding. At his traffic hearing, Robert argued
that because he was detained and interrogated without receiving his Miranda
warnings, his confession should not be admitted. Should the court allow
Robert's confession?

In Berkemer’s case, the court should allow his confession. Miranda warnings are
typically required in situations where an individual is in custody and subject to
interrogation. In this case, Robert was pulled over for a traffic violation, and the
officer's initial question about his awareness of his speed can be considered part of
routine questioning during a traffic stop, rather than a custodial interrogation. The
Supreme Court has established that Miranda warnings are not required during routine
traffic stops, as long as the questioning does not rise to the level of an interrogation
that seeks to elicit incriminating statements.

4) Alan was walking home one sunny Wednesday afternoon and was approached
by an undercover police officer who pretended to be his new neighbor. The
undercover officer struck up a conversation and they spoke for almost an hour
about politics, the changes in the neighborhood, and finally about an apartment
in the building known for selling cocaine and illegal guns. After establishing a
good rapport with his new “neighbor”, Alan admitted that he also sold cocaine
out of his apartment. The officer said he would return two days later with money
to purchase drugs. After the conversation, the officer immediately obtained a
warrant signed by a judge. Alan was finally arrested and claimed that his
Miranda rights were violated when the officer struck up a conversation with him
on that sunny Wednesday afternoon.
 a) Was Alan in custody on that sunny Wednesday afternoon? What factors
would you consider?
Alan was not in custody on that sunny Wednesday afternoon. The absence of physical
restraint, the nature of the conversation, the lack of coercive or authoritative language,
and the absence of any indication that Alan believed he couldn't terminate the
conversation and leave, it is unlikely that Alan was in custody during the
conversation. The undercover officer's failure to provide Miranda warnings would not
be considered a violation of Alan's rights.

b) Do you agree that Alan’s Miranda rights were violated? Why/Why not?

No, Alan’s Miranda rights were not violated. Alan was not in custody during the
conversation. The encounter started as a conversation between neighbors, and there is
no indication that Alan was physically restrained or that the environment was
coercive. Alan freely admitted to selling cocaine suggesting that he did not feel
compelled to incriminate himself.

5) Michael was the main suspect in a murder that took place on Halloween night.
Three rookie police officers parked in front of Michael’s house for two hours and
proceeded to knock on the front door. No one answered. The officers proceeded
to go to the backyard and go up on the porch to knock on the door. Michael
finally opened and the police walked in without being invited. They walked to the
living room and proceeded to ask questions. Not satisfied with Michael’s initial
responses, each officer took turns asking similar questions while the other two
stood in the way of the two exits in hopes of getting an incriminating response.
The encounter lasted for over an hour. Michael finally admitted to the crime and
was charged with murder. Michael argues that his Miranda rights were violated.
Do you agree? Why or why not?

Michael’s Miranda rights were violated. The officer's failure to provide Miranda
warnings during a custodial interrogation undermines Michael's Fifth Amendment
rights against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney
present. This could potentially lead to the exclusion of Michael's confession as
evidence in court. The police officers questioned Michael for a long time and took
turns asking similar questions, it is possible that the environment they created was
coercive. Under these circumstances, Michael eventually confessed to the crime. This
confession may be seen as a result of the pressure and coercion imposed by the
officers during the encounter.