1.
The testimonial evidence against Benny should be admissible. Generally, the information given to the undercover police is an exception to the Miranda requirements. In this case, Benny was in jail hence was in custody. However, Benny was not interrogated. He gave up the information willingly and voluntarily. He went ahead to confess without being asked anything and could therefore not claim to have been given Miranda warnings if he was never interrogated. The voluntary information given was procedurally acquired and, therefore, should be allowed in court.
2.
The testimonial evidence against Jared should be allowed because it did not violate his Miranda rights. Jared confessed voluntarily without any coercion or threat from the police. The police were talking about the case, which is normal and not a tactic of coercion or promises to Jared to entice him to confess.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
3.
The court should allow Robert's confession. When Robert was stopped, he was not in custody since the period of interrogation was very minimal. Moreover, the police asked routine questions which they ask every driver whom they stop for overspeeding. The police asked him whether he was aware of the speed at which he was driving, to which Robert proceeded to confess that he was overspeeding. His answer was an involuntary confession that was not even what the police officer had asked about in the first place. Thus, no Miranda rights were violated, making the confession admissible in court.
4.
Alan was not in custody when he took a walk with the undercover officer posing as his neighbor. Some of the factors to consider when determining whether a person is in custody is the age of the individual, whether the person was confined somewhere or was free to leave, the conduct of the police officer, such as the way he or she was talking, whether the officer was armed or in uniform, and whether there was the presence of other police officers making it impossible for the individual to leave. Alan was within his neighborhood talking to a stranger and could have left anytime. Alan's conversation with the stranger was voluntary, casual, and could have been stopped at any party's will.
Alan's Miranda rights were not violated. Information given to undercover police officers is considered voluntary information hence not an exception to Miranda rights. Alan voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently struck a conversation with the undercover police officer without being interrogated. He did not know the neighbor he was speaking with a police officer and could therefore not ask for the Miranda rights to be upheld. Alan was also not in custody and could not claim to be involuntarily confined by law enforcement officers.
5.
Michael's confession about the Halloween night murder was inadmissible in court. It was illegally procured since Michael's Miranda rights were violated. The officers stood in front of Michael's house for two hours before entering his house. Once they were in, two would always cover the exits to bar Michael from leaving. The session of questioning itself lasted one hour. These factors all point to Michael being in the custody of the three police officers since he could not leave. The questioning that Michael was subjected to amounted to an interrogation. By repeatedly asking the same questions about the murder and covering the exits, the officers intimidated him. They proceeded without giving him his Miranda warnings and never gave him a chance to avoid the interrogation. So even though Michael never asserted his Miranda warnings, the intimidation and forceful detention made him give an implied waiver that was not procedurally gotten.
