1 / 6

Kenneth F Fare vs Micheal C.

Kenneth F Fare vs Micheal C. Presented By Joseph Snyderwine , Josh Dolan and Nick Schmidt. The facts of the case. Michael C was implicated in the murder of Robert Yeager The murder occurred during a robbery of the victims home on January 19, 1976

tobias
Télécharger la présentation

Kenneth F Fare vs Micheal C.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Kenneth F Fare vsMicheal C. Presented By Joseph Snyderwine, Josh Dolan and Nick Schmidt

  2. The facts of the case • Michael C was implicated in the murder of Robert Yeager • The murder occurred during a robbery of the victims home on January 19, 1976 • A small truck registered in the name of the respondents mother • Michael was identified as having been near the Yeager home at the time of the killing • A young man answering the respondents description was seen by witnesses near the truck shortly before Yeager was murdered • Police took respondent into custody at approximately 6:30 pm on February 4

  3. Facts continued • Respondent was then 16 ½ years old, approximately one year earlier served term of youth correction under juvenile court. • The officers and respondent were the only ones in the room during integration. • Officers gave respondent proper Miranda rights, • The respondent drew images implanted him to the case. • The suspect wanted to talk to his probation officer before talking to the police. Read transcript

  4. The issue • If the accused indicates in any manner that she wishes to remain silent or to consult an attorney, interrogation must cease and all prior statements must be redacted. • Interrogation thereafter may not be admitted against him at his trial. • The state of California in the person of its acting chief probation officer attacks the conclusion of the supreme court of California that juvenile's request made while under going custodial interrogation to see his probation officer in person an invocation of the juvenile fifth amendment rights as pronounced in Miranda.

  5. The Decision • The court determined that Michael had waived his rights due to full understanding on what was happening and by looking at the transcript you can tell the police followed all Miranda Rights procedure. • The court determined that in no way was the respondent unable to understand what was happening, he was a teenager with experience with the law and was already under full probation also he was not illegally interrogated. • On those facts it was determined that the witness waived his Miranda rights

  6. Reasoning Why? • While the defense argues that the respondent's statements were coerced and that the police made threats and promises to get him to cooperate however if you look at the transcript. • The officers followed both Miranda Rights and proper interrogation techniques by not intimidating or threatening the witness and all they said was that a cooperative attitude would be best for the respondent. • Also there are no indications that the respondent did not understand what was going on as said earlier and therefore had no reason not to understand he waiveing his rights.

More Related