CJA/304

Week 3 Learning Team Assignment

Hello Team;
For this assignment I want you to answer the below listed situations. In
your answer I want you to state what you based your reply on.
#1. A detective has enough probable cause to arrest Mickey for murder. But
before he does, the detective calls Mickey on the phone and tells him, Im on my
way to your house to arrest you. But before I do, I just want to ask you: did you
commit this murder? Mickey responds, Yeah, I did. Whadya gonna do about it?
True to his word, the detective goes straight to Mickeys house and arrests him.
The prosecutor, at trial, wants to introduce Mickeys statement. One problem: the
detective never gave Mickey his Miranda warnings.
Admissible or not?
That will not be admissible in court, because he did not read Mickey his
Miranda Rights before proceeding to ask him questions. So from my
understanding that will get thrown out of court, because they do not have
anything to go on besides Yeah I did. Mickey could have been covering for
someone.
#2. A police officer is at a crime scene, and asks, out loud to the assembled
masses, Anybody know who committed this crime? Willie comes out of the
crowd and says, Yes, officer, I committed it. Willie is immediately arrested.
The prosecutor, at trial, wants to introduce Willies statement. One problem: the
officer never gave Willie his Miranda warnings.
Admissible or not?
First, why did the officer even ask out loud did anyone commit the crime,
because at the time I could have been anybody. This case will not be admissible
in court, because if you are going to arrest anyone, you have to read them their
Miranda Rights. Willie probably didnt even commit the crime once they
interviewed him.
#3. A cop, on routine patrol, sees Duke walking down the block, the butt of a gun
hanging out the front of his pants waistband. The cop goes up to Duke, pats him
down, and removes a loaded .38 caliber revolver from the front waistband. Duke
doesnt have a license for the gun and is in a state that requires a license to carry
a loaded firearm. The officer immediately arrests Duke for gun possession, but
never advises Duke of his Miranda warnings. The officer brings Duke to the
precinct and, while processing the arrest, notices a wanted poster for robbery
with Dukes picture on it!
The officer calls the detective handling the robbery, advises her that he has Duke
sitting right in front of him. The detective comes down, grabs Duke and, without

ever advising him of his Miranda warnings, throws him in a line-up where he is
identified by the victim. The detective also processes Dukes new arrest but
never advises him of his rights.
Duke gets indicted for gun possession and robbery. His lawyer makes a motion
to suppress everything (including the gun, the line-up identification and both
arrests).
Whats the judges decision on the motion to suppress?
The judge decision is to suppress the arrests, line-up , and gun the reason
is because both officer and detective failed to read the suspects the Miranda
rights as well for violating the suspects 4th amendment which protects him
against unlawful search and seizure.
#4. A man walks into a precinct and walks up to the desk. He announces to the
officers, I just murdered my wife. A detective is called over and s/he asks the
defendant, Would you mind coming upstairs and talk about this for a little while?
The man says, Not at all! and follows the detective up the stairs. Once they sit
at a desk, the detective does not handcuff the man nor block his exit.
Does the detective have to give him his Miranda warnings?
Can s/he continue to question him?
Is the initial statement admissible?
How about subsequent statements under these circumstances?
(Based on how others have responded to this, let me say that you can assume
his wife is really dead, the police find her body without his help, and he is not
crazy!)
#5. A defendant is in the back of a police car, under arrest, for murder. The
officers have not yet read him his Miranda warnings. He asks the police in the
front seat, Who do you say I killed? The officer says, Pamela. The defendant
says, Yeah, well she had it coming!
Is this statement admissible?
No, because the officer failed to read the Miranda Rights about being
protected against self incrimination.
Can the police then continue questioning him?
At this point the officer should stop the questioning, if he doesnt want any
confession gathered to be thrown away.
Do Miranda warnings then have to be administered?
Yes, it is important for officer to stop suspect and read the Miranda Rights
so any confession taken after arrest be used in court.