CRJ 133

People V Bing

Defendant suspect of New York burglary, was arrested in Nassau county on an Ohio warrant after a police teletype confirmed that he was wanted for burglary in that state. he had counsel on the pending Ohio charge but the police, though alerted by the outstanding bench warrant, made no inquiry about the representation when they called Ohio to confirm the warrant or when questioning the defendant. After receiving Miranda warnings defendant waived his right to counsel and admitted his involvement in the burglary. Since the defendant was represented on the charge on which he was held in custody he could not be interrogated in the absence of counsel on any matter.

People V Rogers

Defendant was arrested in his home as a suspect in a liquor store robbery committed by two youths. Defendant was handcuffed, placed in a patrol car and taken to the robbery squad in mineola. Miranda warnings were administered. Defendant informed police that he had an attorney but that he was willing to speaking the absence of the attorney. After two hours of interrogation the police received a call from the attorney instructing them to stop the interrogation.

People v Paulman

During a child sexual abuse investigation, defendant made four incriminating statements to the police in successive interrogations spanning a period of several hours. The appellate Division ruled that one of the statements was inadmissible because it had not been preceded by Miranda warnings. The primary issue presented in this case is whether two statements defendant made after he was given Miranda warnings and waived his right to remain silent should have been suppressed due to the prior unwarned statement. they will be allowed as evidence.

Miranda V Arizona

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained written confession from Miranda. The supreme court held that the fifth amendment's protection against self incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place.

Gideon V wainwright

Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense, when he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five ears in prison. Gideon filed a hebeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida supreme court denied hears corpus. The supreme court held that the framers of the constitution placed a high value on the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as federal courts must respect that right.

People V Bartolomeo

Bartolomeo and his partner attempted to rob a house a shot the owner

Rhode island V innis

After a picture identification by the victim of a robbery, Thomas J. innis was arrested by the police in providence, Rhode island. Innis was unarmed when arrested. Innis was advised of his Miranda rights and subsequently requested to speak with a lawyer. While escorting innis to the station in a police car, three officers began discussing the shotgun involved in the robbery. One of the officers commented that there was a school for handicapped children in the area and that if one of the students found the weapon he might injure himself. Innis the interrupted and told the officers to turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located. The court held that the Miranda safeguards came into play "whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent."

New york V Quarles

After receiving the description of quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer, Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights. The court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirements that police issue Miranda warnings to suspects.

Moran V Burbine

Brian Burbine was arrested for burglary in Cranston, Rhode island. Police then received information connection Burbine to a murder that happened in town a few months earlier. Burbine was read his Miranda rights and held for questioning. At first, Burbine refused to waive his rights, but later he signed three forms acknowledging that he understood his right to an attorney and waived that right. Burbines sister called the local police office to get a lawyer for her brother the police didn't tell Burbine any of this. The supreme court held that failure to inform Burbine about the attorney's phone call did not affect the validity of his waiver of rights the right to counsel does not attach until an accused is formally charged.

Escobedo V illinois

Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder. The supreme court held that Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his constitutional right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself.

People V cunningham

Defendant cunningham was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree as a result of his alleged participation in a gas station robbery in which a service attendant was shot to death. One of the damaging evidence offered against him at trial was a statement he had given to the police the night he was arrested. According to the inculpatory statements made by the defendant in the instant case should have been suppressed. defendant should have had an attorney present.

In Re Gault

Gault was a 15 year old accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor, Mrs cook, after Mrs cook filed a complaint Gault and his friend Ronald lewis were arrested and taken to the children detention home his parents were not informed. Reversed and remanded. in its opinion, the court unanimously overruled Betts V. Brady. Juveniles facing an adjudication of delinquency and incarceration are entitled to certain procedural safeguards under the Due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

Oregon V Elstad

Michael James Elstad was suspected of committing a burglary and was picked up by police officers in his home. Before officers had given the warnings required by Miranda V. Arizona, Elstad made an incriminating statement. Once at the Sheriff's headquarters, Elstad was advised of his rights. Elstad hen voluntarily executed a written confession. The court held that while Miranda required that unwarned admissions must be suppressed, subsequent statements, if made knowingly and voluntarily need not be.

Spano V New york

Spano was involved in a bar fight with frank Palermo, Palermo knocked Spano to the ground and kicked him in the head multiple times. Later that night spano acquired a gun, found palermo, and killed him. the police question him for several hours before they brought spanos friend Bruno to play on their friendship in order to convince spano to confess, which he eventually did. The supreme court held that the interrogation tactics the police used such as questioning spano for hours without a break and using a childhood friend to manipulate him were coercive and violated the fourteenth amendment. Because the confession was involuntary, it should not have been admitted into evidence in trial.

People V Skinner

The body of Diane Shell was found off North French road in the town of Amherst, Erie county. Police attention focused almost immediately upon defendant, who had been seen talking with the victim in a local bar the previous night. two days after the murder, defendant was twice questioned by police. During these interviews, defendant did not admit involvement in the murder. During second polygraph examination defendant acknowledged that upon leaving the bar he gave the victim a ride to riverside section of buffalo. Accordingly, the order of the appellate Division should be reversed, motion to suppress defendants statement granted and a new trial ordered.

People V Arthur

The defendant while walking across the Clarissa street bridge in the Rochester either dropped or threw his two-year old son into the Genesee River. The child was rescued and suffered no injuries. The defendant was arrested and immediately confessed that he had thrown his son into the river. his attorney saw his defendant on the news and decided to go to the police station. And the police made him wait until the interrogation was finished. in conclusion under the prior decision of this court, the written confession and the oral admission made to the detective were obtained in violation of the defendant's right to counsel. Consequently, they were inadmissible. Accordingly, the judgement appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Brown V Mississippi

Two individuals were convicted of murder, the only evidence of which was their own confessions that were procured after violent interrogation. The U.S supreme court found that their rights had been violated the defendants did not get due process.

Illinois V perkins

While being held in jail, Perkins freely confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as another inmate. The court held that conversations between suspects and undercover officers are not afforded Miranda protection since they are not done in a "police-dominated atmosphere" where compulsion to confess is present.

Pennsylvania V Muniz

a patrol officer saw Muiz and another passenger in a car stopped on the shoulder of a highway. when the officer approached, he could smell alcohol on muiz's breath and saw that his eyes were bloodshot and his face was flushed. The officer advised muniz to remain parked, but as he was leaving he saw muniz drive off. Muniz failed all his sobriety tests and was taken to the booking center. the officer read him his Miranda rights, and muniz signed a statement waiving them. in subsequent questioning, he admitted to being under the influence of alcohol. The supreme court held that the fifth amendment distinguishes between real of physical evidence and testimonial evidence, of which only testimonial evidence is protected under the amendment.

People V samuels

two men robbed a store in Nasssau county. investigation officer filed a complaint in the district court charging the defendant with a crime. based on the complaint an arrest warrant was issued. the police arrested the defendant at his mothers home. prior to bringing he defendant before the court for arraignment, the police transported him to a local precinct "for processing" At the police station he was advised of his rights and questioned about the robbery in the absence of counsel. he made oral and written statements admitting participation in the robbery but claiming that he had been coerced into assisting the robber. In sum the statement obtained in the absence of counsel after the filing of the felony complaint should be suppressed.