When Should Testimony Be Allowed or Suppressed

TMC1982 · #1 10-29-2009, 05:11 PM

I'm asking for your assistance/advice about a college writing project that I have to turn in on (or by) Nov. 3 (2009), The project is meant to explore the depth of my knowledge of Constitutional Law (LA-50 to be precise). According to the assignment sheet, in order to succeed I must have a strong understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that we have studied so far. And so far, we have studied Gitlow v. New York, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, Texas v. Johnson, and Prueyard Shopping Center v. Robbins. Basically, if you take them together, these cases tell us about the Freedom of Speech protection (and are there good reasons for the government to allow some limitations on this right).

So now, I have to read up about this case concerning Avery Lawrence, who was arrested for murder. While Lawrence was being held in jail, the police sent an undercover officer named Jamal Smith into Lawrence's cell. Smith was disguised as an inmate, who was being held on a drug charge. At the time, Lawrence didn't know that Smith was an undercover cop. While talking to each other for several hours, Smith asked Lawrence about whether or not he'd killed anybody. Lawrence proceeded to make statements that implicated himself in the crime of murder.

Later at the trial, the prosectution wanted to call Jamal Smith as a witness. The plans were to have him testify about the substance of his jail converstaion with Avery Lawrence. So basically, I'm being asked to play the role of trial judge. I must decide whether Smith's testimony should be allowed or suppressed. I also must explain my reasoning, using past cases as my authority.

zmanjz · #2 10-31-2009, 01:49 AM

Well, that's quite simple.

If he is being interrogated about a crime "FOR WHICH HE IS CHARGED OR BEING HELD ON" by an agent of the government, then it's a violation of Miranda.

IF his detention has nothing to do with the crimes being investigated, and he is otherwise legally detained, then yes. an agent can go undercover to obtain information so long as he does not obtain the information through coercive means. In otherwords the Government must be able to prove that the defendant made his statements voluntarily.

By a contrast, If a cell mate were to beat a confession out of the defendant on his own, never having been an agent of the government, and then that cell mate provides the government the information, that information was not the result of the government suppressing the defendant's rights and therefore is admissible. (Of course that cell mate may face assault charges, AND when a jury hears how the confession was obtained, they may choose to disregard it.)

Master Moron · #3 10-31-2009, 04:56 PM

I'm not quite seeing the connection between free speech and Miranda rights. Are you saying that the only cases you can use are 1st Amendment cases? Because the 1st amendment doesn't really have anything to do with Miranda. I don't see how you would write a paper on a Miranda issue if you weren't allowed to use any related cases.

TMC1982 · #4 11-01-2009, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Moron

I'm not quite seeing the connection between free speech and Miranda rights. Are you saying that the only cases you can use are 1st Amendment cases? Because the 1st amendment doesn't really have anything to do with Miranda. I don't see how you would write a paper on a Miranda issue if you weren't allowed to use any related cases.

I misread while I was typing my initial question. This actually involves two seperate questions. The first one is about Avery Lawrence/Jamal Smith while the second one is about Freedom of Speech protection.