IS FRED GUILTY

Is Fred Guilty

Is Fred Guilty

In this paper we will discuss a case study and to find out the conclusion that Fred was guilty or not. For this purpose I will present a brief scenario of the case and then present the Miranda v. Arizona understanding in order to better judge the case and to find out the right decision.

Brief scenario of the case study

A Wilma the ex-wife of Fred has had been killing and her dead body was discovered bobbing in a forsaken gravel pit pond. Her ex-husband, Fred Flintrock called the policeman department to inquire if the body in the pond might be the body of his ex-wife, Wilma.  Police inquired him to arrive to head agency, purportedly to recognise individual pieces they considered belonged to dead woman.  In truth, policeman liked to interrogate Fred Flintrock about the killing of his ex-wife. The interrogation was methodical, but not overly intimidating.  Police inquired diverse inquiries that had the aim of getting Fred to confess to the murder of his previous wife.  In the last cited part of the interrogation, Flintrock accepted that he had really slain her and put her body in the gravel pit pond and wanted that her body resided submerged.  As pledged, policeman permitted Fred to depart the policeman position and proceed about his enterprise, whereas policeman did grab his pickup truck.  Several hours subsequent, after conferring with a prosecutor, policeman discovered Flintrock at the diner with his woman companion, Betty Rumble.  The policeman apprehended him for Wilma's murder. 

 

Understanding Miranda v. Arizona

In alignment to find out about the case we will study an other case processed under the Miranda v. Arizona and then we will resolve if Fred was at fault or not.  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was a breakthrough 5-4 conclusion of the United States Supreme Court which was contended February 28-March 1, 1966 and determined June 13, 1966. The Court held that both inculcator and exculpatory declarations made in answer to interrogation by a defendant in policeman custody will be admissible at test only if the prosecution can display that the defendant was acquainted of the right to confer with an advocate before and throughout interrogating and of the right against self-incrimination former to interrogating by policeman, and that the defendant not only appreciated these privileges, but voluntarily waived them. Of all situations to make its way to the ...