Miranda rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Miranda rights - Essay ExampleOn July 15, 2003, the California exacting Court unanimously tip over a murder conviction based on confessions gained by the deliberate violation of a suspect killers Miranda rights. (Law 2003). Justice Marvin Baxter was very firm in his opinion that officers have an absolute obligation to play by the rules when minding suspects in custody and that their deliberate disappointment to do so will be intemperately disciplined. (Law 2003).Kenneth Ray Neal was convicted of second degree murder for the 1999 strangulation murder of his friend and housemate Donald Collins. Neal was subsequently sentenced to fifteen geezerhood to life in prison. Neal was an obviously uneducated eighteen year hoar, and Detective Mario Martin deliberately continued to question Neal even after he asked for a lawyer nine times. After spending a dark in jail the eighteen year old sought Detective Martin out and confessed to the murder.The California Supreme Court decided that Ne als decision to re-contact Martin was involuntary based specifically on the detectives deliberate violate of Neals Miranda rights, his youth, inexperience and low intelligence. They further cited promises and threats made by Martin and the fact that Neal was isolated and deprived of food and water season in jail. (Law 2003). The California Supreme Court further stated that the consequence of the officers misconduct-the absolute inability to issue the confessions at trial-is severe, but is intended to deter other officers from engaging in misconduct of this sort in the future. (Law 2003). The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice made a strong argument that officers around the country ar being taught to ignore Miranda with the hope of getting evidence to impeach the accused. Many times when an officer has sound elicited a confession to a crime he has a sinking feeling sensation when he realizes he inadvertently violated Miranda. If the crime was serious and the suspects stat ement absolutely crucial to proving the case that sinking feeling will soon turn into panic. Many officers, when caught in this scenario will offer up the suspects Miranda rights, and hardly start over as though there had been no violation at all. (Miranda 2004). The suspect, having already confessed, rarely realizes the tactics until it is too late. In the case of Oregon v. Elstad a sheriffs deputy arrested eighteen year old Michael Elstad in his home on a burglary warrant, and without obtaining a Miranda waiver, the deputy asked Elstad if he knew the victim of the burglary. Elstad agreed that he did in fact know the victim. The deputy then stated that he believed Elstad to be a caller to the break-ins and Elstad admitted I was there. Later, once Elstad was at the sheriffs office, he waived his Miranda rights and confessed. The issue became whether the subsequent confession should have been allowed as the first gear statement Elstad made regarding being at the scene of the burg lary was elicited without proper Miranda warning. The court pointed out that failure to warn-which it termed a technical violation-differs in significant respects from constitutional violations which have traditionally mandated a bulky application of the