wk 4 forum 2 Jerald

profilefhmtynyaclemocs

 

n my view, the confession made by Mayo was valid because, as soon as the incident occurred, he confessed immediately. He did not at all attempt to negate the accusations that he shot Scowen. According to the investigative report, Mayo acknowledged and, at the same time, signed a waiver before the confession, and it is stated that he wrote his faith voluntarily (n.d.). For instance, in the case between Brown and Mississippi, the police cannot beat an admission out of anyone, and not any statement of confession can be entered as proof.

            There are several procedures necessary for articulations acquired by police and are needed by the court to determine whether the confession is admittable into evidence at trial. An accessible instance is that of Miranda v. Arizona, where the court is expected to inform the accused of their applicable rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1996). The wire-tapping laws exist, and some are more stringent and may make the court not to admit such evidence at trial. Again it is unacceptable in court to say statements which are different conditions permitted to provide proof declaration such as hearing comments on killing someone, which are adoptive admissions. At that point, if such a report is acknowledged as evidence, the court has to choose whether to trust such an announcement.  It all depends on the associates of the judges believe the admission or not.

            The interrogation conducted by the officer was a legal one based on the fact that the examination report indicated that the defendant was provided with his Miranda rights before recording the confession statement 


respond to this discussion question in 100 words

    • 9 days ago
    • 3
    Answer(1)

    Purchase the answer to view it

    NOT RATED
    • attachment
      EE-1564489-E.zip