Since John is already in custody, the first step the police should take is to give John a Miranda warning (Stuart, 2013). The police should remind John that he has the right of remaining silent and any utterance made may be used against him in the court. Procedurally, once the Miranda rights are read out, John should sign to indicate the rights were explained to him appropriately. In this case, when John is arrested, he starts to make incriminating remarks to the officer who has arrested him. The arresting officer did not make any request to John to make the incriminating statements (Stuart, 2013). John makes the confession voluntarily. Depending on state, court will apply different strategies of proving whether John’s confessions are voluntary or otherwise. If the court establishes the statements are voluntary, they will be used against him (Stuart, 2013). However, under Miranda, any involuntary statement cannot be used against John in his case. Any evidence that the officer will gather from the incriminating statements will most likely be disregarded in court (Stuart, 2013). In this particular case, the officer is supposed to book John and note down the voluntary incriminating statements. Whenever a suspect is arrested, he or she is supposed to be taken into custody. In this case, John is already in custody. Prior to any questioning, the officer is supposed to let John aware that, any statement he is going to make might be used against him once he is produced in court. In that case, he can choose to remain silent (Bloom & Brodin, 2019). In addition, the officer is supposed to tell John that he can consult with his attorney prior and during the interview. John should be made aware that he could use these rights at any given time. This procedure is in line with Miranda rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 (Bloom & Brodin, 2019). Whenever a suspect is arrested by the police and taken into custody, the statements gathered from the interview are only admissible in court if the suspect had been informed of his constitutional rights. Police can hold John as they take his pictures, address details, fingerprints, height, weight and birth dates (Bloom & Brodin, 2019). The entire procedure is not supposed to exceed 48 hours after which John will be arraigned in court (Bloom & Brodin, 2019). In John’s case, the court can decide to utilize either a preliminary hearing or a grand jury. Both are significant processes. One of the major similarities between the two is that, the judge has to decide whether there exists sufficient evident to accuse John of felony. Once probable cause is established, preliminary hearing will bound John for trial (Bergman & Berman, 2018). In contrast, the grand jury will consider returning a formal indictment against John. On its part, preliminary hearing allows proceedings to take place in an open court and John can attend with his attorney (Bergman & Berman, 2018). Grand jury will be done in closed doors and neither John nor his attorney will be allowed to attend. In the grand jury, members have powers of carrying out their investigations. This is not the case with preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, a case can be thrown out for lack of sufficient evidence. In this case, John can escape due to lack of felony evidence (Bloom & Brodin, 2019). However, such as scenario is difficult to happen in a grand jury since the members can request for more evidence incriminating the accused. The judge has the responsibility of setting the amount John will pay for his bond, in order to be released and wait trial. The judge is lawfully allowed to raise or lower the amount John will pay for bond. The judge will consider the seriousness of the charges John is facing, and the evidence at hand. He will put into consideration whether he has any financial resources that will enable him to flee (Bergman & Berman, 2018). In addition, the judge will consider his criminal record, and whether there are any ties binding him to the community. The judge will equally consider whether John has issues appearing in court in the past. As mentioned in the case, John does not bear any criminal record. Notably, his close family members are in Mexico, meaning he lacks any association with the community (Bergman & Berman, 2018). Particularly, John has committed a felony, considering the amount of money involved. Evidently, he has no money on him. The judge will consider all the afore-listed to set an appropriate bond for John. Following the interview by the police, a formal complaint has to be issued. It contains the suspect’s name, nature of the crime committed, and the time it was committed. Next step is arraignment (Bloom & Brodin, 2019). Arraignment simply refers to the first time a suspect appears in court before a magistrate. It is the next step following arrest. During this stage, the accused is advised by the court regarding his constitutional rights. The specific charges leveled against the accused are read out, and he gets an opportunity to take plea (Bloom & Brodin, 2019). Still at this stage, as provided for in the Fifth Amendment, the court will provide John with a lawyer considering he cannot afford one. Next step involves the court setting bail.
References
Bergman, P. & Berman, S.J. (2018). The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. Nolo
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Bloom, R. M. & Brodin, M. S. (2019). Examples & Explanations for Criminal Procedure: The Constitution and the Police. 9 th ed. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Stuart, G.L. (2013). Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent. University of Arizona Press
