Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer

The law has always been confused in as far as custodial interrogation is concerned. Whereas all criminal prosecutions and accused are meant to enjoy equal rights to fair and speedy public trial, sometimes this right is abused. Such trials must be done speedily so that all the participants can enjoy equal rights and justice. There have been several amendments that act in place of confessions without the presence of an attorney. The Fifth Amendment mainly discusses this scenario of involuntary confession and statement taking in the absence of an individual’s attorney ( Kamisar,1966) . According to Stephens (1973), the Fifth Amendment expressly states that “no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself'' 

The law that excluded coerced confession was dealt with as late as in the Eighteenth Century. There were several instances of coerced confessions through torture and forced admission to trials. The first case of admissibility saw the Supreme Court determine that ''voluntary confession of guilt is among the most effectual proofs in the law, from the very nature of such evidence it must be subjected to scrutiny and received with great caution,'’ ( Kamisar,1966) . The Miranda vs. Arizona case provided yet one of the best ways to handle the criminal cases and confessions before presentation for trials. The Edwards rule relates very closely to this rule in many ways. This case cited as one of the best ways through which the police department should deal with suspects without necessarily coercing them to confession. The Miranda case found that coerced confessions using torture were rather unreliable and undependable. Judge Robert determined that there is a distinction between confession rule and the standard of due process. According to Edward’s rule, was to show that that confession is made in such a way that it excluded false evidence from admission ( Leo, 2001) . The need to follow due process was to eliminate any the chance of false testimony and forced confessions which may throw the entire disclosures through the window. 

The circumstances under which confessions are made, according to Edward’s rule may throw out the entire process through the window. As seen in the case of the suspect found shoplifting, the due process was not followed. He could have confessed to the crime under pressure and due to intimidation. There is need to ensure that the society does not overlook the fundamentals of rule and process. The suspect should have been accorded his wish to an attorney ( Leo, 2001) . As it stands, it is hard to determine whether the suspects’ confessions are admissible. The confidentiality f the admissions are already jeopardized. 

This case saw the violation of the Sixth Amendment which has the protection of the fair trial. In essence, there is need by the society to exclusively ensure that the suspect is accorded the freedom to expression. The Court ruling to Miranda vs. Arizona found that  “If police initiate interrogation after a defendant’s assertion, at an arraignment or similar proceeding, of his right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant’s right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid,” ( Heilbronner, 2011). Therefore, in this case, according to Edward, the interrogation and the confession are invalid. They were done without the presence of attorney despite the suspect’s request for one. 

The confession to the detectives by the suspect is inadmissible. The detectives were in violations of several provisions of the constitution. Several speculations could have led to the confession y the suspect. First, the suspect could have been intimidated by the presence of the detectives to confessions. Also, the absence of the attorney gave the detectives the advantage to harass or push the suspect to submission. Therefore, there suspect should be given a fair trial, hearing and his rights to an attorney should be thoroughly respected. 

References 

Heilbronner, R. L. (2011). Miranda v. Arizona. In  Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology  (pp. 1635-1635). Springer New York. 

Kamisar, Y. (1966). A Dissent from the Miranda Dissents: Some Comments on the" New" Fifth Amendment and the Old" Voluntariness" Test.  Michigan Law Review ,  65 (1), 59-104. 

Leo, R. A. (2001). Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century.  Michigan law review ,  99 (5), 1000-1029. 

Stephens, O. H. (1973).  The Supreme Court and confessions of guilt  (pp. 165-200). Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press.