1. In Brown v. Mississippi, the Court held that the confessions obtained by the police were not admissible as evidence against the defendants. On what constitutional ground did the Court make this decision?

2. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Court established the Miranda procedural protection and required the police to issue the Miranda warnings before interrogation. Discuss the reasons for requiring the issuance of the Miranda warnings and the circumstances under which the police are required to issue the warnings.

3. Officer Smith saw Jeff on the street. He went over to talk to him. The officer asked him whether he knew anything about the burglary that had occurred in the neighborhood recently. Jeff got scared and said that he was involved in it. Jeff is charged with burglary. He requests suppression of his statement to the police. He argues that the officer interrogated him without issuing the Miranda warnings, which violated his Miranda rights. Did the officer violate Jeff's Miranda rights?

4. Missouri v. Seibert and Oregon v. Elstad: In both cases there was a situation that the police questioned the suspect in the first interrogation without issuing the Miranda warnings and they questioned the suspect again in the second interrogation with the Miranda warnings. The Court in Seibert ruled the statement at the second interrogation inadmissible; whereas in Elstad the Court found the statement at the second interrogation admissible. Discuss why the Court made different rulings in the two cases.

5. Nancy was arrested for shoplifting. The police issued the Miranda warnings to her. Nancy said she wanted to exercise her right to remain silent. Two hours later, an officer came back to her and asked whether she now wanted to talk. Nancy then confessed to the crime. At trial, Nancy requests exclusion of her confession from evidence. She argues that the officer violated her Miranda rights. Did the officer violate Nancy's Miranda rights?

The Fifth Amendment Issues (II)

1. Tom was arrested for murder. The police issued him the Miranda warnings. Tom made no indication whether he wanted to exercise the right to remain silent but refused to answer police questions. Two and a half hours into the interrogation, Tom suddenly confessed to his crime. At trial, Tom requests exclusion of his confession from evidence, claiming that the police violated his right to remain silent. He argues that he did not answer the police questions for more than two hours and the police should have realized that he wanted to exercise his right to remain silent and they should not have interrogated him further. Did the police violate Tom's right to remain silent?

2. The police arrested Winston for robbery and took him to the police station. Upon learning Winston's arrest, his mother retained a lawyer for him. The lawyer called the police to notify them that he represented Winston and asked that the police not question him until after his arrival the following day. The officer at the phone said: "yeah." The police did not tell Winston about the lawyer's call and brought him in for interrogation. The police issued the Miranda warnings. Winston stated that he understood his rights and he did not need lawyer's assistance. He then confessed to his crime. At trial, Winston's lawyer argues that the confession should be excluded because the police did not wait until the arrival of the lawyer and they did not tell Winston about the lawyer's call. Did the police violate Winston's Miranda rights?

3. In Schmerber v. California, the Court held that the withdrawal of blood from the defendant over his objection was not in violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Discuss why the Court held this way.

4. Guy is charged with kidnapping. At trial, the prosecution asks Guy to read a ransom note that contained the ransom message the kidnapper left in the family's answering machine. The purpose of asking Guy to read the note is to provide a voice exemplar so that the jury may compare his voice with the voice in the ransom message. Guy refuses to do so, claiming that compelling him to provide a voice exemplar is in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Does compulsion of Guy to provide a voice exemplar violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 In Brown v Mississippi the Court made its decision based on the Fifth Amendments protection against selfincrimination The confessions obtained by the police were coerced through physical brutality w... View the full answer