100 words agree or disagree to eac questions  Q 1. As her defense attorney, I will argue that the officer did not only not read Sally's Miranda rights; he also did not respect her right to consul.   After Sally made her allegedly verbal utterance, the Officer should have known to read Sally her rights.  I will bring up that during New Jersey v. James P. Kucinski, Oct 26, 2016,  the defendant was arrested for the bludgeoning death of his brother.  The defendant was taken to police headquarters for questioning after the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights; he requested an attorney.  The law enforcement officers terminated the interrogation, spoked with their supervisor, and approximately eight minutes later, the officers returned into the room and advised the defendant that he was being charged with murder.  The scare tactic worked, and the defendant asked to speak with the officers.  The defendant reluctantly answered a series of questions.  Before trial, the defendant moved for suppression motion because the officers did not honor his request for counsel.  The court denied the motion, during further questioning the defendant claimed to have acted in self-defense, the defense counsel moved for a mistrial.  The trial court denied the motion for mistrial but instructed the jury that the defendant's right to remain silent should be limited to assessing his credibility.  The defendant was charged with first-degree murder and third-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes The Appellate Division reversed the defendant's conviction and motion for a new trial due to the prosecutor's question doing cross-examination was improper.  The panel concluded that the defendant invoked his right to remain silent by telling law enforcement officers that he did not want to talk or answer questions.  The Appellate Division found that the trial court instructions to the jury were flaws, and the supreme court agreed and affirmed.  The officers should have stopped all questioning and contacted the defendant's attorney. New Jersey v. Kucinski (2017).  https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2017/a-58-15.html Q 2. My last name begins with a K. so I am answering in the role of prosecutor.  Sally was originally pulled over because she had shown probable cause of drunk driving.  Upon her traffic stop, Sally was then searched after being arrested and the handgun and drugs were found on her body.  The police asked about the two items but did not “interrogate” her.  Sally voluntarily answered the arresting officers’ questions and in doing so piled new charges onto her initial arrest charge.  I believe that the judge will deny the request to suppress the admission of Sally’s statements.  Sally does have rights under the Fifth Amendment, but her statements to the police officers were not coerced out of her.  The Cornell Law School website states that the Fifth Amendment, under the self-incrimination clause, if an individual makes a spo.

1. 100 words agree or disagree to eac questions
Q 1.
As her defense attorney, I will argue that the officer did not
only not read Sally's Miranda rights; he also did not respect her
right to consul. After Sally made her allegedly verbal
utterance, the Officer should have known to read Sally her
rights. I will bring up that during New Jersey v. James P.
Kucinski, Oct 26, 2016, the defendant was arrested for the
bludgeoning death of his brother. The defendant was taken to
police headquarters for questioning after the defendant was
advised of his Miranda rights; he requested an attorney. The
law enforcement officers terminated the interrogation, spoked
with their supervisor, and approximately eight minutes later, the
officers returned into the room and advised the defendant that
he was being charged with murder. The scare tactic worked,
and the defendant asked to speak with the officers. The
defendant reluctantly answered a series of questions. Before
trial, the defendant moved for suppression motion because the
officers did not honor his request for counsel. The court denied
the motion, during further questioning the defendant claimed to
have acted in self-defense, the defense counsel moved for a
mistrial. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial but
instructed the jury that the defendant's right to remain silent
should be limited to assessing his credibility. The defendant
was charged with first-degree murder and third-degree
possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes The Appellate
Division reversed the defendant's conviction and motion for a
new trial due to the prosecutor's question doing cross-
examination was improper. The panel concluded that the
defendant invoked his right to remain silent by telling law
enforcement officers that he did not want to talk or answer

2. questions. The Appellate Division found that the trial court
instructions to the jury were flaws, and the supreme court
agreed and affirmed. The officers should have stopped all
questioning and contacted the defendant's attorney.
New Jersey v. Kucinski (2017).
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2017/a-
58-15.html
Q 2.
My last name begins with a K. so I am answering in the role of
prosecutor. Sally was originally pulled over because she had
shown probable cause of drunk driving. Upon her traffic stop,
Sally was then searched after being arrested and the handgun
and drugs were found on her body. The police asked about the
two items but did not “interrogate” her. Sally voluntarily
answered the arresting officers’ questions and in doing so piled
new charges onto her initial arrest charge. I believe that the
judge will deny the request to suppress the admission of Sally’s
statements. Sally does have rights under the Fifth Amendment,
but her statements to the police officers were not coerced out of
her. The Cornell Law School website states that the Fifth
Amendment, under the self-incrimination clause, if an
individual makes a spontaneous statement while in custody
before being read their
Miranda
rights and a police interrogation did not prompt the statement,
it is considered valid evidence.
Sally was under arrest when she made the statements
and the police officers should have read her her
Miranda
rights from the beginning, but when they searched her and

3. found illegal items, they simply asked about them. The police
officers were not “interrogating” Sally, but simply inquiring
about why she had those items in her possession. It also states
in our forum that the police confront her with these items (gun,
pills and cash). It doesn’t say that they questioned her about
them initially, but more than likely they walked up to her
presenting these items in front of them and she blurted out her
original statement. After her original statement, they asked one
follow-up question in regard to the copious amounts of pain
pills she had. She could have chosen to remain silent, but
instead was trying to “talk” her way out of her drug and illegal
weapons charge.
References
Fifth Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2019, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment.
Q 3.
A motion to suppress evidence is motion requested by the
defense that the judge excludes specific evidence from trial. If
granted, the prosecution or judge may have to dismiss the case.
[1]
Facts:
Sally was pulled over for drunk driving, which led to her arrest.
At the time of her arrest she had on her person a small amount
of marijuana, an unregistered handgun prescription drugs. Based
on what she told the arresting officer regarding the pills, she
was charged with an intent to sell and distribute prescription
drugs. The Counsel for the defendant argues that her statements
are irrelevant as they were made without her being given her

4. Miranda rights.
Reasoning
The office of the prosecutor does not have substantial grounds
to argue the motion to suppress.
The police officer has to follow specific procedures during and
after the actual arrest process to comply with the legal and
constitutional rights of the individual. An arrest occurs when
the police take a suspect into custody. Miranda rights, however,
are only required when one is being interrogated while in
custody. A roadside stop and questioning during a Terry stop
will not be considered “in custody.”
Under the 5th amendment,
[2]
a person must be given Miranda warnings; this includes
informing the suspect of their right of an attorney before a
custodial interrogation by a police officer/government agent.(
Miranda v. Arizona)
[3]
At the time when confronted about the items, Sally was already
arrested. Whether she was in the back seat of a car, in a jail
cell, or standing outside of her car, she should have been read
her Miranda rights. Any statement or evidence obtained from
the suspect before being notified of her rights may be deemed as
inadmissible as evidence at trial
[1]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_suppress;
A request made by a defendant in a criminal trial that the court
refuse to allow a particular piece of evidence to be admitted at
trial, because that evidence was obtained illegally or in

5. violation of the defendant's rights.
[2]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of
war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
[3]
Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d
694, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817, 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 36 Ohio Op. 2d
237, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (Supreme Court of the United States June
13, 1966, Decided ). Retrieved from
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=ur
n:contentItem:3S4X-G470-003B-S2VW-00000-
00&context=1516831
.