Table of Contents
Before the Miranda cases in Arizona, the custodian interrogation laws that the criminal suspects faced varied from one state to another. Statements made by defendants facing criminal judges, and under interrogation by the law enforcers were admissible during trial, even before the advising the defendants on their legal rights (Scheb, 2002).
The objectives of this research are to:
- Find out the legal requirements in Arizona, Illinois, New York, & California states, which permit admissible statements in the law courts.
- Establish the case or Law, which sets the precedence for each of the four states Arizona, Illinois, New York, and California.
The legal requirements and Precedent in the four states
A voluntary confession is admissible in the evidence of any criminal case even before confession is deemed admissible in the evidence given. The judge scrutinizes the confession so as to establish if it was voluntary or not. He or she then informs the jury about the confession. The judge accepts the information and allows the jury to proceed and hear the admissible statements and evidence in a scenario where the confession is confirmed to be voluntary.
The precedent of Arizona case can be explained by using the case of Arizona V. Londo. A drug suspect by the name Londo was arrested with an allegation of selling cocaine. Shortly, Londo started to vomit and portray many signs of medical emergency (Dervort, 2000). The detective in the crime scene took the signs as being related with taking in of narcotics. Londo admitted swallowing the narcotic and this gave the law enforcer to use this for admissibility.
Unlike in Arizona, the information which comes out as evidence is not admissible in court , in case the court is factoring in the burden of post-trial or pre-trial situations for bail or a release order.
The precedent is that for the criminal cases, the witness’s statement is not admissible by the hearsay rule for issues including the inconsistency of the statement and the testimony given during trial, and if the witness will be subjected to cross-examination concerning the statement.
A confession or statement is only admissible in court if the oral or written statement is from the defendant, to state whether he or she is involved in the case or not. If the statement is not voluntary, the evidence cannot apply in court.
The precedent is that the warrant of arrest must be there before entering the suspect’s home. If the evidence is inadmissible, any conviction is reversed and the suspect acquitted. This was the case of Harris, in which the court convicted him but reversed the decision due to admissibility of the case.
In order for a confession or a statement to be admissible in the court of law, an expert must establish the method used to obtain the statement and that to obtain evidence, there is need to use the right scientific measure.
The precedent is that of general acceptance standard, since a valid method helps in obtaining uniform decisions and protecting those involved.
The research used secondary data. These include the policy documents from the United States website, especially the four states Arizona, Illinois, New York, and California. Other research works also formed important sources for information for compiling this paper.
Findings and Discussions
The research from various scholars shows that the four states have some similarities concerning the admissibility of the statements. They permit the use of a statement from a witness, in the court proceedings. However, the methods of approval of these statements for use in court differ significantly. It is worth noting that the Arizona case seems to be more flexible to law enforcers to obtain statements compared to the other three states.
The four states have tried to come up with methods of obtaining statements for determining the admissibility of cases. Arizona offer flexibility to the suspect, but California, Illinois, and New York are stricter in determining the admissibility of cases.
The admissibility and precedent cases in the states need harmonization to obtain justice for the suspects, but also ensure that the judiciary works effectively to maintain law and order.
Related Justice essays
- Success On and Off the Court
- Integrating Advocacy into Professional Responsibilities
- The Criminal Justice Funnel
- Penal Policy in the United Kingdom
- New York Times vs. United States
- Whether a Juvenile Offender Should Ever Face the Death Penalty
- Past and Present Court Systems
- Crime Categories
- Degrees of Shared Responsibility
- Pursuing Criminal Justice Outline