PLANNING AND THREAT

Planning and Threat

Planning and Threat

The case shows that the defendant has been scheduled to appear in court in his home city? Los Angeles? to answer charges involving murder and violation of civil rights. He is currently free on $1 million bond and the local police are not providing any protection.

The U.S. Constitution and it's Bill of Rights bestow our rights and freedoms as Americans. Court interpretations and decisions? like the Supreme Court's Miranda rights ruling define the scope of those rights.

After the defendant has officially been taken into custody (detained by police)? but before any interrogation takes place? police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights? and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning? their statements could be used against them later in court.

The police must advise suspects of their "Miranda Rights" - their right to remain silent? their right to an attorney? and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. If a suspect is not in police custody (i.e.? "under arrest")? the police do not have to warn him of his rights. (Amar 1998)

The police are very aware of when they have to read suspects their "Miranda Rights." The police will frequently question a suspect? specifically telling the suspect? "You are not under arrest? and are free to go. However? we would like you to answer some questions." After the suspect voluntarily answers questions? and sometimes if he refuses? he is arrested. The questioning? being voluntary and non-custodial? is usually admissible. After arrest? the police may have no interest in further questioning? and thus may not ever read the suspect his "Miranda Rights."

Refereeing to this case? it is possible that the defendant sometimes will make voluntary statements after he is arrested. The police do not have to warn suspects not to make voluntary statements? as long as they do not deliberately try to elicit those statements through statements or conduct. Sometimes? suspects will express their surprise at being caught by the police? with statements to the effect of? "You got me." At other times? suspects will try to justify their actions to the police after they are arrested? with statements such as? "I don't know why I did it?" or? "I didn't attempt the murder - It was my friend." Those statements? if made spontaneously by a suspect? will almost always be admissible in court. Additionally? if a statement leads to the discovery of other evidence? even if the statement itself was taken in violation of the Miranda ruling the police may be able to use that evidence.

In this case? if the defendant chooses to remain silent after receiving ...