LSTD400
REPLY TO THIS 150 WORDSUnder the rights of the Fifth Amendment an individual in the United States has the right not incriminate themselves and may do so via the invocation of the right to an attorney/legal representation, the right to remain silent (an example would be not taking the stand if asked to testify, or not answering police questions), and the right to not consent to any type of searches. The Fifth Amendment provides protection from overzealous prosecution, against the ” taking” of private property fro government usage without proper compensation, as well as double jeopardy by the right to due process which can deny no individual life, liberty, and or property (Hughes, H., 2013). The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendants in the criminal process freedom from errors, and injustice via the rights to a public and speedy trial without unnecessary delays in the district and state of the that the crime was committed, the right to be defended by a counsel/lawyer, the rights to have an impartial jury “voir dire” to prevent bias (Judicial Education Center. ,n. d.) the right to be informed of who is accusing them,and the nature or origin of the accusation (to protect against double jeopardy) and the right to confront the accuser (to protect against hearsay) the compulsory process to put a witness (in favor of them) or accuser on the stand (Hughes, H., 2013).An example of the term interrogation can be when an individual is being questioned by police in the framework of a criminal investigation and might or might not be a part of custody. Therefore, custodial interrogation could be what happens following the arrest of an individual that was arrested on the suspicion of committing a criminal act. A non-custodial interrogation (basic questions such as address, and name are allowed to be asked before reading Miranda warnings by police officers) can take place if law enforcement requires more information to support suspicion that an individual has taken part of or facilitated a crime.I find that there are three things that must exist for a Miranda warning to be issued, theses instances are that an actual arrest must happen via law enforcement meaning that physical custody IE restraint by law enforcement by way of handcuffs or placement in a police vehicle Individuals must be put under arrest (restrained, or in handcuffs), and questioning which can amount to interrogation by law enforcement must all exist for Miranda rights to be read (384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda v. Arizona. The United States Supreme Court case which involved the definition of custody during a traffic stop was the case of Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9 (1988). During this situation a police officer had stopped the defendant Bruder as he was in violation of running a red traffic light, the officer stated that he could clearly smell alcohol on the defendants breath and that he had witnessed the Bruder staggering, The police officer then gave Bruder a test of sobriety which included the recitation of the alphabet, and asking the Bruder if he had imbibed in alcohol, the defendant responded that he had in fact been drinking and was on his way to his residence (Non-custodial). At this point the police officer placed Bruder under arrest, removed him from his own vehicle and into the police car (custodial) , and then read him his Miranda warnings, thus the Supreme Court ruled that this defendant was not considered in “police custody” until he was placed under arrest (Farb, B., 2016).Courts have consistently maintained that confessions (to which admission is closely linked but is different) which are brought about using by force or coercion, and or threats are inadmissible as evidence as they violate the defendants 14th Amendment rights of equal protection under the law. Such confessions entitle the accused to a preliminary hearing on the issue when and if the confession is deemed obtained by unlawful means. Confessions of this nature are deemed unreliable, and unlawful for example the police doctrine shows that the actual police presence itself can prove extremely coercive as in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.“Confession” is defined in the U.S. Constitution as meaning any “confession of guilt of any criminal offense or any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing whether or not if the defendant was advised or knew that providing a statement can be used against him/her, the accused was advised before questioning that they had the right to an attorney, and whether or not the accused had an attorney present when confessing“ (18 U.S. Code § 3501 Chapter 223). A trial judge must consider and decide if the confession was actually done voluntarily free from police coercion violent or otherwise by the examination of all facets of the confession such as the time frame in which the defendant’s arrest, arraignment, and actual confession happened, if the accused was completely informed of the offenses charge, nature, and scope that he/she was being charged with when the confession took place, if the accused was advised of their rights before questioning (Miranda warnings), and provided counsel during questioning (18 U.S. Code § 3501 Chapter 223).F. W.ReferencesFarb, B. (2016). North Carolina Criminal Law. The meaning of custody during traffic stops under the Miranda v. Arizona and Berkemer v. McCarthy. Retrieved fromhttps://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/meaning-custody-traffic-stops-miranda-v-arizona-berkemer-v-mccarty/Faraday J. Strock. (1948-1949). Validity of the Admission-Confession Distinction for Purposes of Admissibility, 39 J. Crime. L. & Criminology 743 Retrieved fromhttps://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3642&context=jclcHughes, H., (2013). The Fifth Amendment Explained: The Constitution for Dummies. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/_Y3EtuCzsGQ?wmode=opaque&rel=0&cc_load_policy=1&cc_lang_pref=enHughes, H., (2013). The Sixth Amendment Explained: The Constitution for Dummies. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKu1CIV1uLwJudicial Education Center. ( n. d.). The University of New Mexico. Voir dire and jury selection. Retrieved fromhttp://jec.unm.edu/education/online-training/stalking-tutorial/voir-dire-and-jury-selection384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda v. Arizona. Justia U. S. Supreme Court. Retrieved fromhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/18 U.S. Code § 3501 Chapter 223 – Admissibility of confessions. Cornell Law Library. Retrieved fromhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501″,Law,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
LSTD400,REPLY TO THIS 150 WORDSThe issue behind the confession of Mayo is surrounded by subjectivity in regards to whether or not Mayo was read his rights prior to the confession or not. From the initial information on the case
