CCJS234
Miranda Memo Project
April 4th, 2011

To: Clifford Stoddard
Date: April 4th, 2011
RE: John Smith Murder Charges

Question Presented: When a police officer intimidates a suspect after the suspect refused to talk and asked for counsel was his Fifth Amendment right violated? Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S 477 (1981), a suspect who has invoked his rights to remain silent cannot later waive that right unless he initiates the conversation and does so knowingly and willfully.

Issues:
The officer violated John Smiths Fifth Amendment in which states “that a person shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” John Smiths Miranda right was violated as well which states “that a suspect put under arrest are protected under the constitution against police interrogation and can remain silent until counsel is present.” The officers did not respect his right to remain silent until an attorney was present and initiated the conversation with the suspect in order to get a confession.

Facts:
John Smith was arrested on murder charges, after his arrest he refused to speak with the police and asked for an attorney. He was placed in a holding cell until counsel arrived. The officer and detective went to his cell before his attorney arrived and handed him a statement of the charges against him. In the statement at the top it was indicated in bold letters that he could face the death penalty, which at the time he was under the age of eighteen and was not eligible for the death penalty. The officer after handed him that stated than stated “I bet you want to talk now, huh!” The detective than stated “No, he doesn’t want to talk to us. He already asked for a lawyer and we cannot talk to him now.”
Thirty minutes later the detective returned to Smith’s cell to give him clothing, and Smith asked, “Can I still talk to you?” The detective responded, “Are you saying that you want to talk to me now?” Smith stated that he would talk and began to make incriminating statements about his part in the murder.

Discussion:
The officer and detective violated John Smiths right to remain silent until counsel was present. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S 436, 479 (1966), a person put under arrest are constitutionally protected against police interrogation and can remain silent until they speak with counsel. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), someone who requested counsel cannot be questioned by the police unless they initiated the conversation and are fully aware of their rights. In this particular case the officers used methods of intimidation to get a confession from the suspect after it was clearly stated he did not want to talk to the officers and asked for an attorney. Based on Innis v. Rhode Island, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), in which the suspect invoked his right to counsel and was still interrogated not directly but indirectly and therefore incriminating himself. This is the same scenario as Mr. Smith excluding the fact that the officers were talking amongst themselves with the suspect in their presence.
Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), a confession or statement from a suspect acquired unwilling during a custodial interrogation. The confession the officer and detective acquired from Mr. Smith was involuntary, he was under pressure and fearful by the officers actions and should not be admissible in court.
Officers arrested suspect Collazo for murder, advised him of his Miranda rights. Mr. Collazo refused to talk to