Introduction:
In this case study, a suspect was arrested from the department store based on the suspicions presented by the security guard. Along with this, the suspect was placed in handcuffs at the scene of the crime by Officer Martinez. Once the suspicion was confirmed, the suspect was informed of his Miranda rights by the officer; after being informed of the rights, he further mentioned that he needed a lawyer, which then led to his transfer to the local jail (“Miranda Rights”, 2020). In this paper, an overview of Constitutional amendments related to the case, along with the relation to the Edwards rule, will be highlighted. Towards the end of the paper, the suspect’s confession and its admissibility will be discussed.
Constitutional Amendments Related To The Case:
Based on the situation faced by the current suspect, a constitutional amendment that fits well in the current situation is the Fifth Amendment (“Miranda Rights”, 2020). In terms of the Fifth Amendment, different aspects of the criminal procedure, along with other aspects of the Constitution, will be addressed (Murphy, 2011). Moreover, this constitutional amendment addresses the right against self-incrimination. According to this United States Bill of Rights, individuals are protected from being compelled to testify against themselves in a certain case (Murphy, 2011). One of the common terms used by criminals in terms of the Fifth Amendment is known as “pleading the fifth.” Moreover, this part of the Bill of Rights protects suspects from anything that jeopardizes their rights. A fair trial and jury are guaranteed with the help of the Fifth Amendment (Murphy, 2011). By “pleading the fifth,” the requirement to be used as a witness and participate in a question-and-answer session with professionals is removed without any penalty involved. Hence, the defendants are saved from giving any other statements after their initial ones. In this case study, the suspect is made aware of his Miranda rights. After his initial statement, he requested a lawyer, highlighting how he pleaded the fifth. Moreover, any other question-and-answer session carried out with the suspect will be conducted under the supervision of the suspect’s lawyer. Research suggests that the Fifth Amendment is a way of ensuring that the suspects can receive their rights in law enforcement.
Relation With Edwards Rule:
Similar to the need for a legal guardian for the interrogation of teenagers, the suspects must be provided with an attorney before carrying out any further investigation (Edwards, 2012). Based on the Edwards rule, this rule prohibits the police from starting an interrogation with the suspect before the arrival of the attorney after the suspect has requested one (Edwards, 2012). In this case, when the initial statement was taken from the suspect, he requested a lawyer. If Officer Martinez had carried out the interrogation after that, it would have been illegal. However, once the suspect requested a lawyer under the Edwards rule, Officer Martinez was not allowed to carry out any further investigation with the suspect. Hence, the case relates to the Edwards rule since no other police officers or law enforcement officials who were present during the time of arrest or transfer to jail are allowed to take a statement from the suspect.
Suspect’s Confession And Its Admissibility:
In the current case study and based on the situation faced by the suspect, in my opinion, the confession made by the suspect is not admissible. The suspect made his confession after the Miranda rights were read to him (“Miranda Rights”, 2020). From this, it can be inferred that the confession of the suspect might be because he was unable to hear the Miranda rights. Moreover, the confession might be due to the fact that the suspect knowingly and intelligently surrendered, considering that his confession would not be admissible. Other than this, the suspect invoked his right to an attorney. With the right to an attorney invoked, any other statement made by the suspect in front of a police officer or any of the law enforcement officers will not be admissible at the court trial if the case goes to trial (“Miranda Rights”, 2020). Based on the Edwards rule, his statement in front of police officers will not be admissible after he requested an attorney. When the suspect is provided with the attorney, any statement made by him will be admissible and included as an official record for the court trial.
Conclusion:
To conclude, in this case study, the suspect was made aware of Miranda rights after he made his statement. After that, the suspect requested an attorney. Based on the current situation, a constitutional amendment that fits well in the current situation is the Fifth Amendment, as with the help of this amendment, the suspect will prevent himself from being presented as a witness in his own case (Murphy, 2011). A fair trial and jury are guaranteed with the help of the Fifth Amendment (Murphy, 2011). By “pleading the fifth,” the requirement to be used as a witness and participate in a question-and-answer session with professionals is removed without any penalty involved. Moreover, this case study relates to the Edwards rule as the suspect requested an attorney, after which no police officer or law enforcement officer is allowed to take a statement from the suspect unless his attorney is present (Edwards, 2012). Towards the end of the case study, the suspect’s statement is not acceptable or admissible as he gave his statement after Miranda rights were explained to him (“Miranda Rights”, 2020).
References
Murphy, E. (2011). DNA and the Fifth Amendment. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1823722
Miranda Rights. HISTORY. (2020). Retrieved 8 March 2020, from https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rights.
Edwards, A. (2012). U.S. Supreme Court Limits Edwards Rule. Historia Mathematica, 18(2), 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0315-0860(91)90499-n
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
