100 words agree or disagree with each question
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 the 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
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 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.
Fifth Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2019, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment.
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.
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 Miranda rights.
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, 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)  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
 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 violation of the defendant’s rights.
 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.
 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=urn:contentItem:3S4X-G470-003B-S2VW-00000-00&context=1516831.
Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.