Explain the facts of the 2010 Maryland v. Shatzer decision and the relevance of the case to reinterrogation.
What will be an ideal response?
A reinterrogation after a long period of time has passed between the first and second interrogation––with intervening circumstances––is permitted. In Maryland v. Shatzer, a prisoner who was interrogated by police about a new crime invoked his Miranda rights. As a result, the interrogation was halted, and the investigation was closed. The case was reopened three years later, and the prisoner was interrogated after waiving his Miranda rights. His incriminating statements were used to gain a conviction for sexual child abuse. He later asserted that his initial invocation of Miranda should have carried forward to the interrogation three years later. The Court rejected the theory and found that his return to the general population of the prison and the period of three years constituted a break in Miranda custody.
You might also like to view...
What landmark case helped determine the definition of a search to "protect people, not places"?
A) Miranda v. Arizona B) Butler v. United States C) Payton v. New York D) Katz v. United States
Physical evidence is subject to bias
a. True b. False
Characteristics of a population are often referred to as:
a. statistics. b. medians. c. central organizing traits. d. parameters.
__________________ is the primary form of correctional treatment used by the juvenile justice system
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word