How are the terms subjective and objective used in criminal procedure?
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #2) In what ways have recent Supreme Court decisions shown increased faith in the police?
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #3) Did the introduction of Herrera's testimony violate Manning's right to counsel?
Manning was arrested and jailed in 1990 in the Cook County (Illinois) jail on kidnapping charges relating to a crime committed in Missouri. Manning was also a suspect in an Illinois murder, and the FBI planted a government informant in his cell to try to collect evidence about the Illinois crimes. Thex informant's agreement specified that he was not to elicit any information about Manning's pending Missouri charges. The informant disobeyed these orders and did talk about the Missouri charges; he agreed to help Manning fabricate an alibi defense using the informant's girlfriend, Sylvia Herrera. The FBI then met with Herrera to go over what information she should attempt to elicit from Manning. Pursuant to her agreement with the FBI, Herrera began to record her conversations with Manning. She testified extensively about her work as a government informant and the plan to fabricate an alibi defense. Manning was charged by complaint rather than indictment, was convicted of kidnapping, and received two life sentences.
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #4) Distinguish between a bright-line decision and case-by-case adjudication.
What will be an ideal response?
(Question #5) Were Gonzalez-Lauzan's statements made after Miranda warnings were read admissible?
Officers took Gonzalez-Lauzan, who was serving a ten-month sentence for violating supervised release on a previous conviction to a federal court house to question him abut his involvement in a murder. The officers agreed among themselves in advance not to administer Miranda warnings, and instructed Gonzalez-Lauzan several times just to listen and told him that they did not have any questions. The officers hoped that the strength of this evidence would persuade Gonzalez-Lauzan to talk about his participation in the killing. Approximately two-and-a-half hours into the meeting, Gonzalez-Lauzan stated suddenly, okay, you got me. He was then immediately read his Miranda rights, signed a waiver form, and subsequently made multiple incriminating statements during the interrogation.
What will be an ideal response?
Quick Reply
