Falsified Confessions Case Study

custodial interrogations do not need to be recorded to satisfy the due process requirements in the United States. Moreover, there were seven police officers that testified one of which was not even part of their Department so it stands to reason that it is unlikely that seven officers would attempt to circumvent the law. However, it should be noted It is believed that there should be a remedy to the law as the recording of evidence allows for a quicker and more effective examination of the interrogations and better protect the rights of citizens. “An exclusionary rule is a drastic remedy. I believe such a drastic remedy should be applied only after a full hearing of all the policy implications and with adequate notice to law enforcement.

The majority explained that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, allows for officers to arrests without a warrant where officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime in the presence of the officer. In this case, the officers undoubtedly concluded that a felony had been committed, and the question for the Court was if the officers had sufficient probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed a crime. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, that question was a fact dependent investigation as to whether circumstances allowed officers to conclude not only that a crime was committed but to have specific suspicion of Pringle. In the written opinion Justice Rehnquist stated that three men riding in a car where drugs are found, with all three suspects denying possession, affords officers probable cause to conclude that one or all have committed a crime. The Court rejected Pringle’s assertion that the probable cause in this case amounted to “guilt by association,” distinguishing this case from others in which searches of groups had been limited.

Imagine, suddenly being put on trial and locked away for 18 years and 78 days for a crime you did not commit. This is exactly what happened to Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin when they were convicted for the murder of three young boys: Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Steve Branch. When the bodies of the boys were discovered immense pressure was put on the police and they needed to act quickly. The teens were the obvious and safest choice as they were seen by the community as weird and mischievous. Not to mention there were many rumors saying the group was involved in a satanic cult which supposedly led to the three young boys’ demise.

He was informed that he has the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation and the interrogation will be recorded. Michael declined his right to have an attorney present. He agreed to be interrogated by the police officers without having an attorney present. During questioning, he produced sketches and made incriminating statements that linked him to the murder. While on trial for murder at Juvenile Court, Michael requested to suppress his sketches and statements due to the denial to speak to his probation officer during questioning constituted an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent based on the Burton case.

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

The clause of double jeopardy instituted in the 5th amendment is a clause made to protect individuals from being charged with the same crime twice. There are a immense amounts of laws explaining the way government should act towards individuals. The fifth

This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion. Rule of law: An individual cannot be brought to a police station and fingerprinted without probable cause or a warrant. The courts compared the cases of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. (Investigatory detentions).

Before taking a look at this case, think about the following questions. Do students have the same rights under the 4th amendment as adults? , What are students’ rights while being searched on school grounds?, and What guidelines do administrators and teachers need to follow as a result of New Jersey v. T.L.O? The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O involved two freshmen high schoolers who were caught using narcotics in the restroom by a teacher. The teacher took the students to the principal who then asked the students about the incident.

In this case, five teenage boys confessed to killing a jogger in New York. After hours of unrecorded interrogation, all five confessed. During the interrogation, they were lied to, threatened, yelled at, and promised immunity if they confessed. Four of the five agreed to confess on camera, but the other one didn’t. The kids remained in jail for years, but later on the actual killer came forward and said he acted alone.

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

However, the boy’s parents were not contacted, and he was not told of his rights, although the Miranda case decision authorizes authorities to tell alleged suspects of their rights, such as the right to remain silent or to have access to a lawyer. Although the young boy confessed to the crime, when he was given a lawyer, they sought to suppress the confession because J.D.B wasn’t aware of his

Hi Nakia, I totally agree with your statement about the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the rights of anyone accused of a crime and secure life, liberty and property. It requires that a citizen cannot be accused of a serious crime without a grand jury investigation. As well, it also forbids double jeopardy as you said the act of of bringing a person to trail a second time for the same crime. Fifth amendment really changed many people’s lives.

These five boys were all present in Central Park the night of Meili’s assault and that night, April 19th 1989, they were taken to the central park precinct. They were questioned for over twenty-four hours and forced to give a false confession. They were proven innocent thirteen years later when Reyes admitted to the crime and was proven guilty. All of the boys spent at least seven years in prison for this crime they did not even

In the 1999 film Double-Jeopardy starring Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones the “Double- Jeopardy” clause of the 5th Amendment was questioned with a particular circumstance. In the movie, the lead character Libby has a great life with her husband and young boy. The husband recently had a business success and bought a yacht to celebrate. After a long night on the water with the family Libby passed out drunk from too much wine. When she wakes she is covered in blood and finds a knife next to her.

Thesis: Police interrogations can occasionally lead to false confessions due to misclassification, coercion, and contamination. I. The phrase “Innocent until proven guilty” is a popular statement among law enforcement and government employees, but this statement is not always upheld, as various errors, such as misclassification, are a major cause of false confessions. A. Misclassification errors are caused by “investigator bias,” where the investigator goes into the interrogation believing the suspect is guilty. (Keene)