Discuss one of the following cases: Edwards v. Arizona (1981), or Arizona v. Roberson (1988), or Minnick v. Mississippi (1991). Is the case selected consistent with Miranda? Has the law as represented in this case evolved to benefit defendants rather than the government?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In Edwards v. Arizona (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court held that once a suspect
invokes the right to remain silent, the suspect cannot be questioned again for the
same offense unless he or she initiates further communication, exchanges, or
conversation with the police. In Arizona v. Roberson (1988), the U.S. Supreme
Court held that invoking the Miranda rights in one offense also invokes the
Miranda rights for an unrelated offense. In Minnick v. Mississippi (1991), the
U.S. Supreme Court held that once the suspect requests a lawyer, the interrogation
must stop—whether the defendant confers with the lawyer for not. These decisions
are consistent with each other and with Miranda. The law represented in these
cases has evolved to benefit defendants rather than the government. I agree with
each of these decisions because it makes everyone's actions clear. Once a
defendant requests a lawyer, stop questioning, and do not try to trick the defendant
into a later confession.