What would be the advantages and disadvantages of requiring law enforcement officers to tape-record the entire process of administration of Miranda warnings and the suspect’s invocation or waiver of rights?
- Would any of the following actions cause a statement of a suspect to be involuntary?
- Making an appeal to the suspect’s moral or religious beliefs
- Confronting the suspect with the deceased or seriously injured victim of the crime in question
- Starting an argument with, challenging, or baiting the suspect.
- Does a person need a lawyer to help decide whether to waive Miranda rights? Is the compelling atmosphere of a custodial setting just as likely to influence a person’s decision to waive rights as it is to influence the decision to confess?
- Is a person’s giving of consent to search an inculpatory or exculpatory statement? Should a person in custody be given Miranda warnings before being asked for consent to search? Why must police give elaborate warnings before custodial interrogation but no warnings before obtaining consent to search?
- Assume that a person has been formally arrested for one crime, and police want to question that person about another, unrelated crime. Are Miranda warnings required to be given before the questioning? If the answer is no, what additional circumstances might cause Miranda warnings to be required?
- It is reasonable to assume that a person under investigation for a crime might think that complete silence in the face of an accusation might not look good to a judge or a jury. Should the Miranda warnings include a statement that a person’s silence may not be used against the person in any way?
- Should suspects be told the nature and seriousness of the offense for which they are being interrogated? What if a person believes that he or she is being investigated for an accident caused by driving while intoxicated but does not know that a person in the other vehicle has died?
- What would be the advantages and disadvantages of requiring law enforcement officers to tape-record the entire process of administration of Miranda warnings and the suspect’s invocation or waiver of rights?
- Is it proper for a law enforcement officer to inform a suspect who has just invoked the Miranda right to counsel that the case against the suspect is strong and that immediate cooperation with the authorities would be beneficial in the long run? If the suspect says, “What do you mean?” would this be considered an initiation of further communication by the suspect and a waiver of the right to counsel?
- Considering the confusion and pressures associated with being arrested and transported to a police station, should arrested persons be advised, in addition to the Miranda warnings, of where they are being taken, what is going to happen to them, how long they will be held, and with whom they may communicate?
- Would the Massiah rule be violated if conversations of an indicted and imprisoned person were obtained by means of a listening device installed in that person’s cell?
In New York v. Quarles, the Court said, “We think police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Describe three situations in which the distinction might not be so easy for a police officer to make
joyce
0
