Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

235
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
235
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Surname 1Name:Instructor’s name:Course:Date: America Supreme Court Case Report Introduction It is important to understand that the confession rule is clearly stipulated by the court’snew constitution and should be followed to the letter. The main purpose of the law is to handle,address and question people in custody. The law gives arresting authority so that the suspects andthe victims know the implications of their confession to their final judgment. This is done byletting them know they have the right to remain silence, that any issue he or she communicatesmay be used against him, has the right to obtain an attorney without charges and he also has therights to present an attorney during the time of questioning. In order to achieve this rights somestatement of rejections are usually needed, as well as, tricks. This paper will seek to analyze theU.S. Supreme Court Case Report, New York Times vs. United States. The Supreme Court and the U.S. constitution, clearly do not allow the prosecutingattorney or police officers as well as detectives, to question the defendant while in custody.Likewise the law does not allow any form of contact with the outside environment (Rosen, 2).Consequently, according to the law, none of the defendant is given effective and full warning ofhis rights during the interrogation process. As illustrated in both cases, the questioning involvedoral admissions and signed agreements which were admitted in trials. It was also stated that the
  • 2. Surname 2defendant were exceptionally convicted by the court law number 584 and were later affirmed inthe court of appeal (Rosen, 4) According to the Supreme Court law of America, the prosecution could not use writtenor oral statement to decide on the victim’s case. The statements stemming from questioning ofthe victim by the law enforcement officers in custody, was illegal unless it followed theprocedural safeguards effectives to secure the 5th Amendments privilege against self-incrimination. It continued to elaborate that the environment as well as the atmosphere ofincommunicado interrogation should be improved. Depending on the way it exists nowadays, noone should be intimidated at work or undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Aselaborated in the clause that states that unless satisfactory defensive measures were enacted todispel the compulsion inherent in the custodial ecosystem. There was no statement gained fromthe defendant that could surely be the product of the defendant free choice, as it was presented onpage 445 and 458 (Greenburg, 445). The action in Escobedo v. Illinois, number 378 America 478, emphasized the need forsaving devises which ease process of police interrogation and add credibility into them. Thesaving devises are also approved to command the privilege illustrated in page 465-466. It alsoelaborated on the privilege against the self-incrimination, which contained an expansivehistorical improvement in the U.S. The law gives the defendant the right to remain silent unlesshe or she decided to communicate in the unfettered exercise, basing on his or her own decisions.However, the exercise was practiced during the time of custodian interrogation, aselaborated inpage 458 to 465 of the country’s law and during the time of other official investigationsaccording to explanation on page 458 to 465 (Connon, 23).
  • 3. Surname 3 The Supreme Court also elaborated that if a person represented during or prior to thetime of questioning, and not to say anything then the interrogation will be forced to cease. On theother hand, if the defendant chooses that he want an attorney, then the questioning should bestopped until an attorney is brought. At the same time, in case of absence of other essentialmeasures, the following steps to secure the 5th Amendment privilege were to be putted intoaction(Greenhouse 448). In addition, person who was in the custody to prior to interrogation was supposed to befully informed about his rights to remain silent. It was further stated that any word the defendantwas to say, was to be applied against him while in the court. Similarly, the defendant was alsoinformed that he had the rights to consul. The consul is the lawyer who should represent thedefendant during the interrogation process. The defendant was as well allowed to have a lawyerrepresenting him incase he was an indigent (Rehnquist, 102). In addition, where the person answers some questions while incustody, the interrogationprocess should not waive his privilege and may invoke his freedom to remain silent thereafter. Atthe same time, where an interrogation was carried out without the appearance of attorney, the bigburden lies with the government. This is because the law should express the thoughts that of thedefendant who knowingly waived his right to counsel (Connon, 112). The Supreme Court also elaborated that the interrogators were advised to induceconfession through the use of tricks. This technique was very effective in crimes and neededsome identification which basically went on in a series of stages. During the time ofidentification, the situation of the interrogator was allowed to have a break aimed at allowinghim to group his subjects among the group of men in a line up. At that time, the complainant isgiven a chance to study the line up and identifies the subject of the guilty party (Connon, 113).
  • 4. Surname 4 The questioning kicked on like there were no doubts concerning the guilt of the mainsubject. The accused was then placed in the line up, but identified with a lot of fictitious victims,who clarified him with several offenses. The main expectation was to put the defendant at adesperate position and thus make him confess of committing the offence. The defendant was alsoput under a tight security in order to escape from the false accusations (Connon, 114). Inaddition, criminal law theories were also used to illustrate the laws. It was stated that,during theinitial investigation, the police may question anybody with an aim of acquiring details whichmay contribute to the identifying the criminal. In finalizing the case, the supreme court of America decided that there should be amassive reexamination of criminal law enforcement procedures in the country. In view of thefact, that the case had never been witnessed before in the country it was treated as a special case.Some of the participants included special committee of the American Bar association andAmerican law Institute. Conclusion The expression indicates that the present expression claims that confession wereinadmissible not because of the traditional practices, but due to lack of proper counsel. Lastly,nothing in the constitution or procedures of thelaws that should carry a heavy handed and onesided action that is so precipitously.
  • 5. Surname 5 Work CitedConnon, Lou. President Reagan the role of a lifetime. Public Affair, 2000. Revised illustrated reprinthttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/books/review/08KALMANL.html?_r=1&pa gewanted=allConnon, Lou. Reagan’s disciple :George W Bush’s trouble quest for a presidential legacy. New York: Public affars, 2008. PrintGreenburg Crowford. Supreme conflict the inside storyof the struggle for control of America. New York: Penguin press 2007. PrintGreenhouse Linda. Becoming justice Blackmun. California: Henry Holt and company, 2006. PrintRehnquist Hubb. The supreme court. New York: Vintage book 2002. PrintRosen Jeffry. The supreme court. California: Henry Holt and company , 2007. Print