Written Assignment #2: Custodial Interrogations
The assignment provides an overview of the issue of custodial interrogation discussed in Chapter 8 of the text. Use this chapter and the lecture as references for this assignment. Based on the fact pattern, address the questions and issues found in the assignment below in a 750-1,200.
The assignment provides an overview of the issue of custodial interrogation discussed in Chapter 8 of the text. Use this chapter and the lecture as a reference for this assignment.
Please read the following fact pattern.
In the Week 2 assignment on the Fourth Amendment, we were introduced to Detective Mark Quickdraw and a known drug dealer, Sally Martin.
Martin lives at 1024 Slum Street. As you may recall, Martin was indicted for possession of heroin and weapons under disability for the firearm found in her bedroom. The heroin was found in the kitchen. Once found, Martin was placed under arrest and transported to the police station for questioning.
While transporting Martin, uniformed police officer Sam Justice says, "Man, I'm having a bad day."
Martin replies, "You're having a bad day . . . man, I can't believe they found my strap (firearm)."
Justice asks Martin, "Where did they find it?"
Martin replies, "In my bedroom!"
Once at the police station, Martin is placed in a small interview room that is set up to be videotaped. While waiting, Martin blurts outs, "I should have sold that Bart Simpson (heroin) quicker!" After that, she put her head down on the table. This statement was caught on videotape.
After 45 minutes, Quickdraw comes in and introduces himself. As he goes over Martin's rights, she tells him, "I know my rights, man, I don't need them read so I can tell you the gun is mine!" Quckdraw stops Martin so he can finish the rights waiver.
Detective Quickdraw asks Martin, "Where did you get the smack (heroin) from?" Martin replies, "Whacha talkin 'bout?" Quickdraw says, "Come on Sally, you know." Martin replies, "Look, you got me on the strap, but I need to talk to my lawyer now." Quickdraw presses Martin by saying, "This is your last chance to talk." Martin sits in silence. Quickdraw states, "Tell me where you got the smack and I will let you see your kids before I take you off to jail for booking." Martin says, "Big Bill sold it to me a couple of days ago."
After being indicted, Martin's lawyer files a motion to suppress all statements made by her client. Now, you are the judge. How would you answer the following questions?
1.How would you rule on when Martin makes the statement, "You're having a bad day . . . man, I can't believe they found my strap"? Is this statement admissible, or should it be suppressed? Why or why not? Are there any other statements that Martin makes that are similar to this statement in terms of its admissibility?
2.What about the statement made to Officer Justice, "In my bedroom!" Is this statement admissible at trial by the prosecution? Why or why not?
3.When Quickdraw overviews Martin's rights, what constitutional rights should he go over with her?
4.When Martin interacts with Quickdraw in the interview room, what statements are admissible and why? Does Martin invoke any rights at any point, and does this impact the admissibility of any statements made by her?
Recently Asked Questions
- an example of social behavior or a social situation that seems inconsistent with the fundamental presupposition and why it could be inconsistent?
- Please help for this question. It asks for using the pumping lemma to prove that this machine is not right. I know that we are supposed to find a loop in this
- I’m trying to understand The Crisis by Thomas Paine, but I don’t get what his purpse is. I can sense a bit that he’s trying to persuade people, but I