CJAD 415 - Discussions; General Description For your initial posts, make sure that you answer each part of the discussion promptly with a thorough, original response. Each initial post should have a minimum of 8-10 sentences. At least two references are required for each initial post. Be sure to provide APA in-text citations (including Page Numbers) for all resources. 1) Textbook reference excerpts with page numbers are provided. 2) In addition to textbook excerpts, At least ONE Outside reference with citation including page number is required. Outside reference: Tudor's choice 3) At least 190 words 4) I request Rohan MO, if available. 5) Prag report - needed for discussions 6) Instructor is now using https://www.zerogpt.com/ for discussions, I will need a report. 7) Please process thru razorpay, include discount, and refund reimbursement Rubric: 1) Post is well developed, fully addresses, and develops all aspects of discussion or reflection. 2) The initial post should be at least 8-10 well developed sentences. 3) At least two references or resources Are used for each initial post. Provides accurate APA in-text citations for all resources./n Discussion 13 Discuss the merits and current importance of the Miranda doctrine. What are the benefits and costs of this doctrine to society? Do the benefits offset the costs? Do the benefits offset the costs? Why or why not? Important discussion points (outside references required): What are the benefits and costs of this doctrine to society? Do the benefits offset the costs? Opinions (Required): Do the benefits offset the costs? Why or why not? Learning Resources: Chapter 11 An Unreal Dream (Video) Required! In the video, Do You Have the Right to Remain Silent? | Salinas v. Texas, you will learn of a hotly debated decision that makes a subtle but profound distinction of when and how your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is preserved. Mr. Salinas remained silent without invoking any constitutional rights, yet the State was allowed to comment on his silence as substantive evidence for the jury to consider as to his guilt or innocence (Lynch). As you ponder the significance of this decision, ask yourself the question of who is most likely to be impacted by this decision. The phrase "you have the right to remain silent" has become so commonplace because of television crime shows that many keep silent when in the presence of law enforcement. Will this decision require citizens to respond with "I take the 5th” in all interactions with law enforcement? References del Carmen, Rolando V. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. 10th ed, Belmont, California: Cengage Learning, 2017. eText Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 Lynch, Tim. CATO at Liberty. 17 June 2013. 5 December 2019. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013) Textbook Citation: Carmen, R.V. D., & Hemmens, C. (2016). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (10th ed.). Cengage Limited. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781337472395 Textbook Excerpts - with page numbers: Page 327: THE FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution provides that "no person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This right has been a source of controversy and has generated a host of issues, some of which are still unresolved. The main question is this: When are confessions and admissions admissible as evidence in a criminal trial, and when are they excludable? The answers are not simple, but this chapter's discussion should provide some insights. One case stands out far above all other cases on the admissibility of confessions and admissions. That case is Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Miranda is perhaps the best known criminal procedure decision ever issued by the Supreme Court, and it was and remains controversial. It is perhaps the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that has led to the creation of a new word, one that is widely used by police, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges: Mirandized, meaning that the suspect has been given the Miranda warnings. By the Miranda rule evidence obtained by the police during custodial interrogations cannot be used in court during trial unless the defendant was first informed of the right not to incriminate himself or herself and the right to a lawyer. (Mirandized), and unless that right was waived intelligently and voluntarily. Mirandized: a term used by law enforcement officers to indicate that the suspect has been given the Miranda warnings. Miranda rule: evidence obtained by the police during custodial interrogations cannot be used in court during trial unless the defendant was first informed of the right not to incriminate himself or herself and the right to a lawyer. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Page 328: Voluntary Confessions Before the Miranda decision, the Supreme Court decided the admissibility of confessions and admissions on a case-by-case basis. The sole test was whether the confession was voluntary or involuntary, based on a totality of the circumstances. Voluntariness was determined by the courts based on whether the suspect's will was “broken" or "overborne" by the police during interrogation and taking into account all of the facts and circumstances in the case. This approach did not provide much guidance to the lower courts because the Supreme Court had failed to set any definitive guidelines by which the admissibility of confessions could be determined. In general, the Court held that confessions obtained by force or coercion could not be used in court; conversely, confessions were admissible if they were voluntary. Voluntariness was the standard used, but the meaning of that word was difficult to determine and changed over the years. In criminal justice, a confession means that a person says he or she committed the act; an admission means that the person owns up to something related to the act but may not have committed it. Confession: a person says he or she committed the act. Admission: a person admits to something related to the act but may not have committed it. Originally, only confessions or statements obtained by physical force (such as beating, whipping, or maiming) were considered inadmissible. Later, courts recognized that coercion could be mental as well as physical. Even then, the hard question remained: At what point did physical or mental (psychological) coercion become so excessive as to render the confession involuntary? Clearly, physical torture was prohibited, but what about a push, a shove, a slap, or a mere threat? As for mental coercion, suppose the police did not physically abuse the suspect but simply detained him "until he talked"-was that coercion? If so, how long must the detention last before the confession could be considered coerced? A few hours? A day? A week? Page 328: Coercion and Brutality—Confession not Valid A deputy sheriff, accompanied by other persons, took a suspect (brown) to a murder scene where he was questioned about the crime. Brown denied his guilt and was hanged by a rope from the limb of a tree for a period of time. He was then let down, after which he again denied his guilt. He was next tied to the tree and whipped, but he still refused to confess and was allowed to go home. Later brown was seized again and whipped until he confessed. The Court reversed the conviction and held that the confession was a product of utter coercion and brutality and thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Deception-Confession not Valid The defendant was suspected of murder in New York. About ten days after the murder, Spano telephoned a close friend who was a rookie police officer in the New York Police Department. Spano told his friend that he (Spano) had taken a terrific beating from the murder victim, and, because he was dazed, did not know what he was doing when he shot the victim. The officer relayed this information to his superiors. Spano was brought in for questioning, but his attorney advised him not to answer any questions. The department called in the rookie friend and told him to inform Spano that his telephone call had caused the officer a lot of trouble. The officer was instructed to win sympathy from Spano for the sake of the officer's wife and children. Spano initially refused to cooperate, but after his friend's fourth try, he finally agreed to tell the police about the shooting. Spano was convicted and appealed. The Court said that the use of deception as a means of psychological pressure to induce a confession was a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, and therefore the Court excluded the evidence. Confession not Voluntary-Confession not Valid The defendant was charged with murder and found guilty by a jury. While in jail pending trial, Rogers was questioned about the killing. The interrogation started during the afternoon of the day of his arrest and continued through the evening. During the interrogation, Rogers was allowed to smoke and was given a sandwich and some coffee. At no time was he ever subjected to violence or threat of violence by the police. Six hours after the start of the interview, Rogers still refused to give any information. The police then indicated that they were about to have Rogers's wife taken into custody, whereupon Rogers indicated his willingness to confess. The confession was introduced as evidence during the trial, and Rogers was convicted. The Court held that the confession by Rogers was involuntary, and therefore not admissible, on the grounds that the accused did not have complete freedom of mind when making his confession. Suspect Denied Counsel at the Police Station-Confession Not Valid Escobedo was arrested for murder and interrogated for several hours at the police station, during which time he was persuaded to confess. During the interrogation, Escobedo repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, who was also at the police station at that time and who demanded to see him. The police refused both requests and proceeded to interrogate Escobedo. He eventually confessed, was tried, and was convicted. On appeal, the Court held that Escobedo was denied his right to counsel, so no statement taken during the interrogation could be admitted against him at the trial. The Court said that “where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into the unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect... no statement elicited by the police during the investigation may be used against him at a criminal trial." Page 332: Miranda's Significance Miranda v. Arizona had a huge impact on day-to-day crime investigation. It drew a bright-line rule for admissibility of confessions and admissions and led to changes that have since become an accepted part of routine police work. No other law enforcement case initially generated more controversy within and outside police circles. Supporters of the Miranda decision hailed it as properly protective of individual rights, whereas critics accused the Court of being soft on crime and of coddling criminals. The 5-to-4 split among the justices served to fan the flames of the controversy in its early stages, with opponents of the ruling hoping that a change in Court composition would hasten its demise. But that has not happened, nor s it likely to happen. The Miranda warnings, with variations, have been adopted in other countries and have in fact become a popular export of the U.S. criminal justice system. Miranda is unusual because a Court decision seldom tells the police exactly what they should do. In Miranda, the Court did not simply say that a constitutional right was violated; it went further and prescribed in no uncertain terms what the police should do. In clear language, the Court mandated that a suspect “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Seldom has the Court been as specific in its instructions about what the police should do. Miranda also clarified some of the ambiguous terms used in Escobedo. "by custodial interrogation," said the Court, "we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." It then added this footnote: "This is what we meant in Escobedo when we spoke of an investigation which had focused on an accused." Yet the focus test used in Escobedo was abandoned by the Court in later cases; in its place, the custodial interrogation test was used to determine whether the Miranda warnings needed to be given. The Escobedo case brought the right to counsel to the police station prior to trial; the Miranda case went beyond the police station and brought the right to counsel out into the streets if custodial interrogation was to take place.

Fig: 1