UKCustomPapers | Case study analysis

Case study analysis

Police received a tip that a man has been selling drugs out of his house and that there are several teenagers who work for him as peddlers. Two officers stopped him outside his house and asked if he would accompany them to the station to answer some questions. He agreed to come along.

On the way to the station, the officers pointed to children walking around and mentioned that penalty is heavy for those who sell drugs to children, or involve them in selling drugs. The suspect said, “Hey, I may have dealt some drugs, but I have never sold to kids or dealt with kids.“

When they arrived at the station, the officers arrested him and read him his rights, based on the tip they had received initially, and his admission to selling drugs. Then he was taken to a room and confronted with being the center of a drug ring that uses teenagers to distribute drugs. He asked, “Maybe I should call my lawyer?“ The officers replied, “Telling us the truth will do much more for you than seeing a lawyer.“ The man admitted to his involvement and called his lawyer afterward.

Based on the case study for submit a case analysis and answer the following questions:

Assume that you are the judge on this case. What motions to dismiss would you expect to hear from the defense in the case? How would the prosecution counter these motions?
What are the key issues arising from the defendant’s admission made while in the police car? Is the case within the ambit of Miranda, or outside it? Why do you think so?
Should the defendant’s admission in the police car be admissible? Why or why not? Discuss with reference to United States v. Patane (2004).
What would have been the effect on this case if the suspect had not asked for his lawyer? Discuss with reference to Escobedo v. Illinois.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/630/

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615

Sample Answer

Case Analysis

The defendant was stopped by police on a tip that he was selling drugs out of his house and that he used teenagers as peddlers. The defendant agreed to go to the police station to answer questions. On the way to the station, the officers told him that the penalty for selling drugs to children is severe. The defendant responded by saying that he had never sold drugs to children or involved them in drug dealing.

When the defendant arrived at the station, he was arrested and read his Miranda rights. He was then taken to a room and confronted with being the center of a drug ring that uses teenagers to distribute drugs. The defendant asked if he should call his lawyer, and the officers responded by saying that telling them the truth would be better for him than seeing a lawyer. The defendant then admitted to his involvement in the drug ring.

Full Answer Section

Motions to Dismiss

The defense in this case would likely make two motions to dismiss:

The admission made in the police car should be suppressed because the defendant was not read his Miranda rights at the time.
The admission made in the police station should be suppressed because the defendant asked for a lawyer and the officers continued to question him.

The prosecution would likely counter these motions by arguing that the defendant’s admission in the police car was voluntary and that the defendant waived his right to an attorney by continuing to talk to the officers after asking for a lawyer.

Key Issues

The key issues arising from the defendant’s admission made while in the police car are:

Whether the admission was made voluntarily.
Whether the admission was made within the ambit of Miranda.

The admission was made voluntarily because the defendant was not threatened or coerced by the officers. However, the admission was made before the defendant was read his Miranda rights, so it is possible that the admission was made in violation of Miranda.

United States v. Patane

In the case of United States v. Patane (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that a voluntary confession made by a suspect who has not been read his Miranda rights is admissible in court. The Court reasoned that the Miranda warnings are not required to make a confession admissible, but only to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Escobedo v. Illinois

In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect has a right to have an attorney present during questioning if he or she asks for one. The Court reasoned that the right to an attorney is essential to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Effect of Not Asking for a Lawyer

If the suspect had not asked for a lawyer, the officers would have been free to continue questioning him without reading him his Miranda rights. This is because the Supreme Court has ruled that a suspect does not have a right to an attorney unless he or she asks for one.

Conclusion

The outcome of this case will depend on whether the court finds that the defendant’s admission in the police car was voluntary and whether it was made within the ambit of Miranda. If the court finds that the admission was voluntary and made outside the ambit of Miranda, then it will be admissible in court. However, if the court finds that the admission was involuntary or made within the ambit of Miranda, then it will be suppressed.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

Our Free Services

Paper Formatting

No Lateness!

Our Guarantees

Case study analysis

This question has been answered.

Our Services

Daily Statistics

Why Choose Us