CRJ325 - CASE STUDY 3 - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS AFTER A REQUEST FOR A LAWYER

CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS AFTER A REQUEST FOR A LAWYER
CASE STUDY THREE

1


Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Christopher J. Abreau
CRJ325
Online Spring 2017
May 26, 2017

Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
2

During the trek through the legal jungle and the correct procedure of processing a suspect the summarily purpose is the correct attending to rules, regulations and adherence to details and as such the constitutional rights of suspects and the rights of officers are a primary focus and how the constitutional amendments figure predominantly in the process.

The guarantee to fairness during the interrogation stage is allocated and given by the Fifth Amendment. This Amendment gives protection by affording the right to not self-incriminate, be subjected to double jeopardy and the right to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments and compensation for seizures of private property under eminent domain. The Sixth Amendment affords the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime was committed.

With said Amendments acting as protective safeguard the right to counsel is always a given right before the answering of questions that would self-incriminate and depose the accused to a regulatory stage of guilt and incarceration. Therefore, the reading of the Miranda Rights allows the accused to be told his or her rights with acknowledgment of the right to silence. As such the waiving of these rights allows the admissibility of any statements that relay knowledge and actions of participation in a crime to be used against said accused in the case against him or her.

In the manner of the case of shoplifting which are also summarily known as a stage of kleptomanism these acts are done in adverse to legal norms and laws and are acts of war against the market holders and consumers who shop and buy. Even with the active surveillance cameras the acts of war continue which escalates the spur of crime and wrongness of belief that acceptance will follow their belief they are entitled to something for nothing. Further bias is also an attribute that causes the lack of discovery of all shoplifting Trojans whose nature is very predatory and stigmatic. There are several types of strategic glosses that address the levels of shoplifting with the most significant as follows: body gloss,

Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
3

orientation gloss and circumspection gloss and as such it describes a purposeful state and strategy when doing an offensive act of shoplifting.

Body gloss is described as a way of situating or positioning the body to prevent discovery while in an active state of criminality. Orientation gloss gives the actions done as nolmalcy and does not subsequently cause suspicion. Circumspection gloss deliberately allows the perception of a physical act to be perceived as non-threatening. These universal glosses in relation to the shoplifting journey are indeed an assistant in the establishing of causal effect because each tries to negate and disguise the true intent.

As such the act of shoplifting is a studied act which establishes a stage of premeditation, forethought and deliberacy. With that thought in mind is the evaluation of Officer Jones attendance to duty and the arresting of a shoplifter (suspect). The suspect was apprehended and cuffed after being caught shoplifting and taken to the manager’s office. The manager called the police and Officer Jones arrived twelve minutes later, took a statement from the security guard, viewed the in-store camera film of the shoplifting incident and placed the suspect under arrest, read to the suspect the Miranda Rights or Warning and inquired if he would like to make a statement. After receiving the response of “No, I would like a lawyer.”from the suspect Officer Jones transported the suspect to the local jail to be booked. Five hours later, the suspect was interviewed by a detective and read the Miranda Warning. The detective inquired if the suspect would like to talk. The suspect replied “Yes” and eventually confessed to the crime.

In regard to this scenario, the Edwards Rule would not be applicable due to the nature of a lack of coincidence or similarity. The scenario that helped establish the Edwards Rule (Edwards v. Arizona (1981) ) is summarily different due to the fact that the confession in this case was gained by the suspect gaining knowledge that another suspect had implicated him in a crime. Because he was not granted legal

Confessions and Admissions after a
Request for a Lawyer
4

counsel and subsequently confessed due to an act of deliberate entrapment and misleading of the suspect who did not retain his rights to silence and confessed to the crime.

As with the guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the right to not self-incriminate the suspect’s rights were violated as an active intimidation tactic and allowed the dismissal of any testimony given that incriminated him in the crime by his confession. Therefore, in this case of Officer Jones and the suspect the protective status of the Edwards Rule would not be suited to this situation. Because the suspect knowingly, intelligently waived his rights to silence with no intimidation or entrapment involved with the waiver explained simply and clearly to relay the consequences of choice. Further the active confession is admissible, with a stance to prosecute due to the free right of choice and also due to fact of evidential proof of the crime committed on camera, witness and secured apprehension by the security guard.


References

Dioso-Villa, R., Julian, R., Kebbell, M., Weathered, L. & Westera, N. (2016). Investigation to Exoneration: A Systemic Review of Wrongful Conviction in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), 157-172.
Matthews, R. (2010). The construction of’So What’ criminology:a realist analysis. Crime, Law & Social Change, 54(2), 125-140. doi:10.1007/s10611-010-9249-2
Lasky, N., Jacques, S., & Fisher, B.S. (2015). Glossing Over Shoplifting: How Thieves Act Normal. Deviant Behavior, 36(4), 293*309. doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.935651
Steffensmeier, D. J., & Terry, R. M. (1973). Deviance and Respectability: An Observational Study of Reactions to Shoplifting. Social Forces, 51(4), 417-426.
Freckelton, I. (2013). The Steal: A Cultural History of Shoplifting by Rachel Shtier. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 20(2), 312-314. doi:10.1080/132187719.2013.783767
Waiving Miranda Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/waiving-miranda-rights.html

Right to silence. (2017, May 20). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence

(n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/i-edwards-i-rule
Edwards v. Arizona. (2017, April 12). Retrieved May 25, 2017 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards _v._Arizona

Self-incrimination. (2017, May 21). Retrieved May 25, 2017 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination

Rewriting the Edwards Rule.(n.d). Retrieved May 25, 2017, from
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2010/05/rewriting-the-edwards-rule.aspx