Defendants Confessions example essay topic

Facts: All Defendants were held in police custody and interrogated while being allowed no contact with anyone outside of the rooms in which the interrogations took place. None of the Defendants were fully and effectively warned of their rights in the beginning of the interrogations. All four Defendants gave oral confessions and three signed statements. This evidence was admitted at trial. All convictions, except in Stewart were upheld on appeal. Issue: Are statements of confession made by suspects to the police during the course of police interrogation admissible into evidence, or are there too many factors that may affect how "voluntary" such confessions are as to deem said confessions inadmissible?

Answer: Yes Reasoning: The Court holds that the Prosecution may not use any statements of confession arising from police officers' questioning while a suspect is in custody and not fully aware of his Fifth Amendment rights. Only those confessions obtained when the would-be confessor is aware of his Fifth Amendment rights and is fully aware of all of the implications of said rights may a confession be admitted into evidence. Such confessions must be made voluntarily and the confession must not be the direct or indirect result of pressure from the police or other authorities. "Incommunicado interrogation " creates an atmosphere that aids in undermining the Defendants's elf-incrimination privilege and prevents a confession that is entirely the product of free choice. The right to remain silent has historical significance and is a mainstay of the adversary system. There is a need to ensure that police interrogation "conforms to the dictates of privilege".

Prior to interrogation, each suspect must be informed of his right to refrain from speaking and the possibility that any statement he chooses to make may be used against him in Court. Suspects must also be told of their right to counsel both prior to and during investigation and that they are entitled to counsel without regard to their ability to afford such services. Lastly, a suspect who complies with the interrogation has not revoked his right to silence and may invoke such right at any time. Prosecution argues that such mandates for interrogation are necessary to ensure that suspects are not subjected to police misconduct and that suspects are afforded all Constitutional rights. Prosecution also argues that such limits interfere with police investigations and do not change the suspect's access to all privileges afforded him in the Fifth Amendment. Defendants argue that police and other investigators did not notify them of their rights prior to questioning and that their statements should be withdrawn on grounds that they are inadmissible due to being spoken or written while Defendants were not aware of their rights in such a situation.

The supreme court opinion states that limits on the interrogation process should not inappropriately interfere with the system of law enforcement, but ensure that only those confessions which are completely and totally voluntary may be admitted into evidence at trial. The privilege against self-incrimination is embedded in American history and is part of an individual's "substantive right", which the Court heralds as a "hallmark of our democracy". A suspect who is taken into custody and subjected to interrogation without full knowledge of his rights may be compelled to incriminate himself. Furthermore, a suspect may be more likely than usual to confess in a police interrogation room than in a court or other setting in the presence of unbiased observers.

The government is to be an example for the people and it cannot break laws even if it does so with for the purpose of procuring the confession and subsequent conviction of any suspect. Such disrespect for the law may result in contempt for the law and is inherently bad. Only those confessions made knowingly and intelligently may be admissible into evidence at trial; confessions made without these qualifications are not truly voluntary and are therefore inadmissible into evidence at trial. Defendants each argue that they were not advised of their rights, in particular, their right to remain silent and right to counsel at time of police interrogation and at the time their spoken and or written confessions were made.

The Prosecution argues that Defendants' confessions were voluntary and that Defendants knew of their Fifth Amendment rights at time of confession.