 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
zrcon
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25th, 2010 12:30 am | 1st Post |
|
1. What specific constitutional rights are implicated when analyzing whether a defendants statement will be admitted into court or suppressed? Please give a specific constitutional right not just the amendment.
2. What are five legal or practical problems that may occur in suspect identification procedures?
|
cjustice
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25th, 2010 07:11 pm | 2nd Post |
|
1. For statements, the overarching supreme court ruling is Miranda - essentially, it is broken down into two components - was the person in custody, was the person asked acusatory questions. Most of the other case law takes about defining custory - but, anytime the police have stopped someone and they aren't clearly able to leave - they are in custody. Police can get around this by calling a suspect on the telephone - typically, the police will ask the suspect for their side of the story. Clearly the person isn't in custody because they can hang up the telephone. As for acusatory questions, if the police ask you simple information like name, address, etc., Miranda doesn't apply - not acusatory in nature. Miranda has a number of sub-cases which talk about refusal, softening up periods, defining custory, etc. The Miranda comes from the 4th and 5th amendments of the US constitution - search siezure/self-incrimination.
2. a) defendant's right to counsel at line up; b) similarities of persons in line up c) admonish given to victim/witness (suspect may or MAY NOT be in line up, etc) d) is defendant in custody (PC to arrest must exist unless field line up, then different rules come into play such as defendant generally can't be transported from scene, etc)
|
zrcon
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25th, 2010 07:17 pm | 3rd Post |
|
Thanks you so much for the help! : )
I compared my results to yours and you helped me find a few I couldn't think of thanks again..Last edited on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 07:20 pm by zrcon
|
cjustice
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25th, 2010 07:20 pm | 4th Post |
|
| cool - hope it helped
|
jaycube
Guest
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Jul 6th, 2012 05:34 am | 5th Post |
|
cjustice wrote:
1. For statements, the overarching supreme court ruling is Miranda - essentially, it is broken down into two components - was the person in custody, was the person asked acusatory questions. Most of the other case law takes about defining custory - but, anytime the police have stopped someone and they aren't clearly able to leave - they are in custody. Police can get around this by calling a suspect on the telephone - typically, the police will ask the suspect for their side of the story. Clearly the person isn't in custody because they can hang up the telephone. As for acusatory questions, if the police ask you simple information like name, address, etc., Miranda doesn't apply - not acusatory in nature. Miranda has a number of sub-cases which talk about refusal, softening up periods, defining custory, etc. The Miranda comes from the 4th and 5th amendments of the US constitution - search siezure/self-incrimination.
2. a) defendant's right to counsel at line up; b) similarities of persons in line up c) admonish given to victim/witness (suspect may or MAY NOT be in line up, etc) d) is defendant in custody (PC to arrest must exist unless field line up, then different rules come into play such as defendant generally can't be transported from scene, etc)
This post is really helping to those persons who want to ask same question again.
|
Current time is 12:54 am | |
|
|
|
|
