Miranda and Admissibility of Statements Caution: please focus on quality Grammar/ English, correct spellings and also ensure u attend to all questions carefully and according to the set forth instruction. Ensure u re-read your work to eliminate any mistake
For a suspect’s statements to be admissible in court, he or she must meet certain criteria. As you have learned from the Miranda case, in that instance, the Court rejected voluntariness of statements as the sole test for admissibility. Although voluntariness is still required, it is now assumed if three questions can be answered in the affirmative. First, it must be shown that the Miranda warning was given. Second, if it was given, it will be necessary to determine whether there was a waiver. Finally, if there was a waiver, there must be evidence that the waiver was intelligent and voluntary. There are certainly other circumstances when confessions may be admissible when made before Miranda warning is given, which makes this area of law very intricate and fact-based.
You will use the Miranda and Admissibility Statements media as the foundation for your assignment.
In your paper:
- Determine whether you can question the occupants of the vehicle in the scenario at the scene without Miranda warning. (Question 1: Was Miranda warning given?)
- Analyze, after the Miranda warning was given, whether there was a waiver. (Question 2: If Miranda warning was given, was there a waiver?)
- Explore whether, assuming there was a waiver by the suspects, the waiver was intelligent and voluntary. (Question 3: If there was a waiver, was it intelligent and voluntary?)
- Explain how Miranda changed the way police officers perform their jobs.
Create a 3 page paper in APA format according to the instructions above. Use 2 academically verified sources for references. Be sure to utilize in-text citations. Use the transcript and incorporate it in your paper. The link is in the drop file below
Mirada warning is a clarification of rights that must be given before any custodial cross examination, stemming to a great extent from the Fifth Amendment benefit against self-incrimination. The individual arrested and cross examined need to be made mindful of the right to stay quiet. The right to counsel with a lawyer and have the lawyer present in the cause of the questioning, the right to have a lawyer hired if indigent. Finally, right to be informed that anything he or she says can be made use of in court against him or her (Rogers et al., 2007).
Based on the scenario, questioning of the vehicle occupants devoid of reading them Miranda warning is possible, but it is has a disadvantage.