Were Gonzalez-Lauzan's statements made after Miranda warnings were read admissible?
Officers took Gonzalez-Lauzan, who was serving a ten-month sentence for violating supervised release on a previous conviction to a federal court house to question him abut his involvement in a murder. The officers agreed among themselves in advance not to administer Miranda warnings, and instructed Gonzalez-Lauzan several times just to listen and told him that they did not have any questions. "The officers hoped that the strength of this evidence would persuade Gonzalez-Lauzan to talk about his participation in the killing." Approximately two-and-a-half hours into the meeting, Gonzalez-Lauzan stated suddenly, "okay, you got me." He was then immediately read his Miranda rights, signed a waiver form, and subsequently made multiple incriminating statements during the interrogation.
What will be an ideal response?
Yes
You might also like to view...
All of the following are considered events that affirmed the existence of organized crime EXCEPT
a. organized b. LCN c. committee d. commission
Since 2005, more than 40 states have passed or proposed new "Castle Doctrine" legislation intended to expand the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Some argue that these new laws are the expression of one's "right to defend" while others argue that they are a "license to kill.". Explain each argument and make your own argument for one side or the other
What will be an ideal response?
In which case was the defense attorney able to stop the Bush administration from trying a Guantanamo Bay detainee before a military commission?
A) People v. Johnson B) State v. Olwell C) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld D) Gideon v. Wainwright
“A” and “B” plan and carry out a robbery of “X”, “A” was not present at the time of the robbery, nor did he intend that “X” be killed. As a result of the robbery and killing “A” is guilty of”:
a. murder and robbery. b. attempted murder. c. robbery only. d. being an accessory.