Devon Samuels sat in his jail cell, smiling. The two detectives had questioned him for three hours,
Question:
Devon Samuels sat in his jail cell, smiling. The two detectives had questioned him for three hours, but he only shook his head at every question. He didn't even wantan attorney. He was very familiar with the criminal justice system and didn't need to pay an attorney a couple of thousand dollars to tell him what he already knew - don't answer anything you don't want to answer.
Lunch was a bologna sandwich and lemonade on a cardboard tray, just like it had been yesterday. And the day before. But this time, there was a surprise: a tall, heavily tattooed dude wearing a denim vest and jeans being led into his cell. Devon knew the dude had to be a biker. Devon was a wanna-be biker, so he warmly greeted his new cellmate, Snake.
"Yo."
"Yo."
Pleasantries out of the way, Snake started a conversation with his new cellmate while enjoying his gourmet meal. Devon was impressed with the biker dude and wanted his new friend to know what a tough guy he was. Within five minutes, Devon had not only told Snake how he had robbed the elderly woman at the ATM but also about seven other armed robberies he had committed over the past month. Sadly for Devon, Snake was taken from his cell a short time later.
Devon didn't see Snake again until his trial for the ATM robbery. Then he saw Snake in the uniform of a Lake County Sheriff's Deputy on the witness stand, relating what Devon had said to him in the jail cell.
"He never said he was the police!" Devon cried to his attorney. "He didn't give me no Miranda!"
Using the facts in this scenario, and only the facts in this scenario, did Deputy Snake violate Devon's Fifth Amendment rights?
What would Deputy Snake have to say to Devon in the jail cell before talking with him about his crimes?
HINT: This might be a trick question. Remember the text of the Fifth Amendment as you work on this: "Nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Is it your opinion that Miranda rights were violated in the scenario, "Were Miranda Warnings Properly Given"?
Explain how, if not, what differentiates the scenario fromMiranda v. Arizona?