This document summarizes a Supreme Court case report regarding interrogation procedures and the right to remain silent. It discusses how the Supreme Court ruled that confessions obtained without informing suspects of their rights cannot be used against them in court. The Court also said interrogation must cease if the suspect requests a lawyer. The case led to new safeguards being put in place around police questioning of suspects to protect their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

1. Surname 1
Name:
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’s
new 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 and
the victims know the implications of their confession to their final judgment. This is done by
letting them know they have the right to remain silence, that any issue he or she communicates
may be used against him, has the right to obtain an attorney without charges and he also has the
rights to present an attorney during the time of questioning. In order to achieve this rights some
statement of rejections are usually needed, as well as, tricks. This paper will seek to analyze the
U.S. Supreme Court Case Report, New York Times vs. United States.
The Supreme Court and the U.S. constitution, clearly do not allow the prosecuting
attorney 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 of
his rights during the interrogation process. As illustrated in both cases, the questioning involved
oral admissions and signed agreements which were admitted in trials. It was also stated that the

2. Surname 2
defendant were exceptionally convicted by the court law number 584 and were later affirmed in
the court of appeal (Rosen, 4)
According to the Supreme Court law of America, the prosecution could not use written
or oral statement to decide on the victim’s case. The statements stemming from questioning of
the victim by the law enforcement officers in custody, was illegal unless it followed the
procedural safeguards effectives to secure the 5th Amendments privilege against self-
incrimination. It continued to elaborate that the environment as well as the atmosphere of
incommunicado interrogation should be improved. Depending on the way it exists nowadays, no
one should be intimidated at work or undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. As
elaborated in the clause that states that unless satisfactory defensive measures were enacted to
dispel the compulsion inherent in the custodial ecosystem. There was no statement gained from
the defendant that could surely be the product of the defendant free choice, as it was presented on
page 445 and 458 (Greenburg, 445).
The action in Escobedo v. Illinois, number 378 America 478, emphasized the need for
saving devises which ease process of police interrogation and add credibility into them. The
saving devises are also approved to command the privilege illustrated in page 465-466. It also
elaborated on the privilege against the self-incrimination, which contained an expansive
historical improvement in the U.S. The law gives the defendant the right to remain silent unless
he 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 in
page 458 to 465 of the country’s law and during the time of other official investigations
according 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 the
time of questioning, and not to say anything then the interrogation will be forced to cease. On the
other hand, if the defendant chooses that he want an attorney, then the questioning should be
stopped until an attorney is brought. At the same time, in case of absence of other essential
measures, the following steps to secure the 5th Amendment privilege were to be putted into
action(Greenhouse 448).
In addition, person who was in the custody to prior to interrogation was supposed to be
fully informed about his rights to remain silent. It was further stated that any word the defendant
was to say, was to be applied against him while in the court. Similarly, the defendant was also
informed that he had the rights to consul. The consul is the lawyer who should represent the
defendant during the interrogation process. The defendant was as well allowed to have a lawyer
representing him incase he was an indigent (Rehnquist, 102).
In addition, where the person answers some questions while incustody, the interrogation
process should not waive his privilege and may invoke his freedom to remain silent thereafter. At
the same time, where an interrogation was carried out without the appearance of attorney, the big
burden lies with the government. This is because the law should express the thoughts that of the
defendant who knowingly waived his right to counsel (Connon, 112).
The Supreme Court also elaborated that the interrogators were advised to induce
confession through the use of tricks. This technique was very effective in crimes and needed
some identification which basically went on in a series of stages. During the time of
identification, the situation of the interrogator was allowed to have a break aimed at allowing
him to group his subjects among the group of men in a line up. At that time, the complainant is
given 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 main
subject. 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 a
desperate position and thus make him confess of committing the offence. The defendant was also
put under a tight security in order to escape from the false accusations (Connon, 114). In
addition, criminal law theories were also used to illustrate the laws. It was stated that,during the
initial investigation, the police may question anybody with an aim of acquiring details which
may contribute to the identifying the criminal.
In finalizing the case, the supreme court of America decided that there should be a
massive reexamination of criminal law enforcement procedures in the country. In view of the
fact, 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 and
American law Institute.
Conclusion
The expression indicates that the present expression claims that confession were
inadmissible 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 one
sided action that is so precipitously.

5. Surname 5
Work Cited
Connon, 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=all
Connon, Lou. Reagan’s disciple :George W Bush’s trouble quest for a presidential legacy. New
York: Public affars, 2008. Print
Greenburg Crowford. Supreme conflict the inside storyof the struggle for control of America.
New York: Penguin press 2007. Print
Greenhouse Linda. Becoming justice Blackmun. California: Henry Holt and company, 2006.
Print
Rehnquist Hubb. The supreme court. New York: Vintage book 2002. Print
Rosen Jeffry. The supreme court. California: Henry Holt and company , 2007. Print