Question: As part of an investigation into illegal narcotics activity police
As part of an investigation into illegal narcotics activity, police officers went to the home of Cindy Lou Cates and interviewed her about her involvement in buying and selling narcotics. Cates had realized that the officers wanted to interview her and therefore asked a friend to arrange the meeting, stating her desire to cooperate with the investigation. The officers drove an unmarked car, were not in uniform, and did not draw their weapons at any time during the interview. The interview took place on the porch of her house, and Cates was free to leave when she so desired. The officers stressed to Cates that whether or not she submitted to the interview was a choice that had to be of her own free will. Cates never indicated a desire not to talk. At different times, she got up from her chair and entered the house, unescorted. The interview lasted several hours. During the interview, Cates recounted her activities buying and selling narcotics, including that she purchased narcotics from a number of individuals and resold to others. Two months after the interview, Cates was indicted by a grand jury. During her trial, her attorney moved to dismiss any statements she had made to the officers during her interview with them and later in the trial asked the court to declare a mistrial. The attorney argued that these statements were made during custodial interrogation and without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The attorney claimed that Miranda warnings must be given whenever law enforcement officers interrogate a suspect who has been arrested or whenever under any other circumstances the suspect is deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way. The judge in the lower court ruled that no mistrial was warranted in this case, and Cates was convicted. She appealed her case. Should the appeals court uphold Cates’s conviction?
Answer to relevant QuestionsWhen Arnold arrived at the Los Angeles International Airport after returning from a trip to the Philippines, he proceeded through the checkpoint at customs with his luggage, including a laptop computer and several computer ...Arthur Dixon, executive director, and James Hinton, housing coordinator for United Neighborhoods Inc. (UNI), were in charge of administering federal funds received from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ...Dr. Huggins, a dentist, was staying at the Ritz Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee, where he had a suite. When he went into the bathroom to shave, he flipped the light switch on the wall. When he did, he received a tremendous ...This case deals with medical malpractice in which both the plaintiff and the defendant were doctors. The suit was brought by Dr. David Axelrad, a psychiatrist, the patient, against Dr. Richard Jackson, an internist, the ...Compare petit jury with grand jury as mentioned in Chapter 3. How are they similar? How do they differ?
Post your question