Motion to Suppress Statement

Motion to Suppress Statement

1. Was the Defendant’s statement obtained in violation of Defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution?

Yes, the Defendant’s statement was obtained in violation of his privileges against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In the United States or generally in the American Law, “you have the right to remain silent” are some of the commonly referred to phrases during an arrest. The phrases represent privileges entitled to any Defendant. Conversation going after an arrest has been made without the detective reading the rights to the Defendant violated those privileges. In the Fifth Amendment, the right of privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed that no individual in any manner shall be obliged in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves.

The detective had talked with Todd, the co-defendant and the Defendant before reading him his rights. The Defendant seems desperate on the 9^th statement as he begs to talk to the detective. From that, it is clear that the conversation they had with the detective and Todd was clear to him that he was in trouble.   The Defendant’s statement was obtained in violation of his privileges against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in that the detective is reading his rights just as a formality as they are recording the statement. But the detective had questioned the Defendant prior without reading him his right. The law states that failure to inform the Defendant his full rights can be categorized as a way of coercing to confuse, deprive or deceive the Defendant of the full understanding of his rights.

1. Was the Defendant’s statement obtained in violation right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?
   

The right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution allows the Defendant to have an attorney present during questioning when in custody. The Defendant has to invoke the right to counsel by making request for the presence of an attorney in any possible and reasonable way that the detective or the officer would understand it’s a request for an attorney. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the detective from further questioning the Defendant once the right to counsel has been provoked.

From the Alex case, the Defendant provoked the right to counsel when recording the 10^th statement by requesting if he can talk to his lawyer. The detective was putting the Defendant in a dilemma when she was giving him the sign of willing to help yet not abiding to the rule of law. She violated the first rule of not reading full rights to the Defendant and ensuring that he understands them. Secondly, she misled the Defendant that he has to retain the lawyer and make payments. She did not inform the Defendant the state will appoint a lawyer if he cannot afford one.  This is against the Sixth Amendment; hence the Defendant’s statement was obtained in violation of the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

1. Was the Defendant’s statement obtained in violation of the Defendant’s right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution?
   

Defendant’s right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that; “no state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The essence of the right to due process is to protect citizens from being subjected to the arbitrary exercise of the government forces.

From the case, there was a violation of the due process from the beginning as the detective was giving the defendant room to answer questions in absence of his attorney despite requesting for one. The detective did not read full right to the Defendant and ensure that he understood his rights. There was no due process followed and his liberty was deprived.