miranda v. arizona.
Supreme Court of United States. With him on the brief were Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General, Georgia B. Kathleen Kelly Walsh argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?
While respondent in this case was in police custody, he indicated that he did not wish to answer any questions until a miranda v. arizona. was present. The issue presented is whether, in the circumstances of this case, officers interrogated respondent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when they allowed him to speak with his wife in the presence of a police officer. The caller stated that a man had entered the store claiming to have killed his son. When officers reached the store, respondent Mauro freely admitted that he had killed his son. Arizona, U. The officers then took Mauro to the police station, where he was advised of his Miranda rights again. At that point, Mauro told the officers that miranda v.
arizona. did not wish to make any more statements without having a lawyer present. All questioning then ceased.
As no secure detention area was available, Mauro was held in the office of the police captain. At the same time, one of the officers, Detective Manson, was questioning Mauro's wife in another room. After she finished speaking with Manson, Mrs. Mauro asked if she could speak to her husband. Manson was reluctant to allow the meeting, but after Mrs. Miranda v. arizona. insisted, he discussed the request with his supervisor, Sergeant Allen. Allen testified that he "saw no harm in it and suggested to [Manson] that if she really sincerely wanted to talk to him to go ahead and allow it.
Tracee's Currently Reading
Miranda v. arizona. instructed Manson not to leave Mr. Mauro alone and suggested that Manson tape-record arzona. conversation. Manson then "told both Mr. Mauro that they could speak together only if an officer were present in the room to observe and hear what was going on. He brought Mrs. Mauro into the room and seated himself at a desk, placing a tape recorder in plain sight on the desk.
He recorded their brief conversation, in which she expressed despair about their situation.
During the conversation, Mauro told his wife not to answer questions until a lawyer was present. In rebuttal, the prosecution played the tape of the meeting between Mauro and his wife, arguing that it demonstrated that Mauro was sane on the day of the murder.
Navigation menu
Mauro sought suppression of the recording on the ground that it was a product of police interrogation in violation of his Miranda rights. The trial court refused to suppress the recording. First, it explained the basis mirana the officers' decision to allow Mrs. Mauro to meet with her husband in the presence of a policeman: "The police counseled [Mrs. Mauro] not to [speak with her husband], but she was adamant about miranda v. arizona.
One thought on “Miranda v. arizona.”