Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer
Introduction
Investigation and detection of guilt in a crime can be obtained through confession and admission. A heavy interrogation can lead to coerced or false confessions from a defendant. The poor and those who do not understand their rights can become vulnerable and submit to coercion plus trickery by the investigators. Interrogations are regulated by the constitution to ensure that they follow fair and normal procedures but not from coercion. The aim of the paper is to evaluate constitutional amendments involved in coercion and how Edwards rule is applied in the provided case.
Constitutional Amendment
The Fifth Amendment grants the liberty to stay quiet to individuals during questioning to prevent incriminating themselves in a criminal situation (Lynnette, 1). In the criminal justice system, security personnel should not exercise authority to force personal incriminating statement from an individual but should obtain proof by autonomous ways. In this case, officer Martinez was right to ask the suspect whether he wished to make a testimony, and when the defendant asks for an attorney, Martinez obliged. However, the detective violated the Fifth Amendment by re-reading the Miranda warning as a way of coercing the suspecting to confess to the crime. Additionally, the sixth amendment may apply since the suspect has the right to a lawyer and public trial to prove him guilty (Legal Information Institute, 2). In this case, confession to the crime was not subjected to trial since when the suspect asked for a lawyer, and none was provided (Legal Information Institute, 3). Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment grants that a suspect cannot be forced to testify against himself or herself. The suspect, in this case, was compelled to confess to the crime, a case that can be treated as testifying against himself.
Application of Edwards Rule
Edwards Rule preserves the right of the suspect to choose to communicate with the investigators only through a lawyer or counsel (Maryland v. Shatzer, 4). In this case, the suspect refused to make a statement with the police and request for a lawyer; a request that was not granted. Instead, a detective went ahead to interrogate the suspect to get a confession. Thus, Edwards Rule was violated.
Determination of Whether the Confession was Admissible
The suspect’s affirmation to the police officer was not permissible and could not be used against him in a court of law as affirmed in Davis v. U.S. (1994, 5). First, the defendant’s Fifth Amendment civil liberties were dishonoured because a lawyer was not granted when he asked for one. Second, his rights to speak through counsel was violated when the detective went ahead to question him even after his request for a lawyer. The suspect requested for a lawyer immediately after arrest. This can be supported by several cases; for instance, in Arizona v. Roberson (6), the court ruled that the police should not question a suspect further if the suspect requests for a lawyer, even if the questioning involves criminal offences that the suspect is not yet charged. In another case, Maryland v. Shatzer (4), Edwards Rule was applied in a court of law in 2010. In this case, the police had tried to question Shatzer of allegations in molesting his son. The officer was questioning him in the absence of his counsel. However, Shartzer refused to answer the officer’s questions without the presence of a lawyer. The investigator stopped questioning him and the investigation ended due to lack of sufficient evidence. In McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991, 7), the court ruled that the suspect must request for his lawyer before bail hearing, and a result, no further interrogation should be subjected to them. Additionally, Brewer v. Williams (1977, 8) case judge upheld that the suspect had the right for an attorney immediately he was arrested and charged of the crime. Also, a judge held that when a suspect requests for a lawyer, no further interrogation should be subjected to the in Michigan v. Mosley (1971, 9). From all these cases, it is evident that the confessional is not admissible in a court of law.
Sources
- Lynnette L. Lupia, 1984, Fifth Amendment–Admissibilty of Confession Obtained Without Miranda Warnings in Noncustodial Setting, 75 J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 673, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6439&context=jclc
- Legal Information Institute, Sixth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6
- Legal Information Institute, Right to Counsel, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_counsel
- Maryland v. Shatzer, Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Maryland, 2009, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-680.pdf
- Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452 (1994).
- Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988).
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. (1991).
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977).
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96,96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.ED.2d 313 (1975).