¶ … Moose Horn Police officers admissible at trial, since no Miranda warnings were given to the defendant at any time? In the case of Sleazy vs. The state of decency the statements made by the defendant were not admissible in court because the officers did not inform Sleazy of his Miranda rights. These rights should have been stated to the defendant when it was obvious to the police officers that section 54321 of the law had been violated.

Instead the officers continued to ask Sleazy questions that they knew would incriminate him. This violated his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself; the amendment is a fundamental part of the American justice system and was not adhered to in this case. Therefore the statements made by Sleazy were not admissible in court.

In neglecting to read Sleazy his rights the officers were forfeiting all of the information that Sleazy was providing because he was not aware that what he was discussing could be used against him in a court of law. The case of Miranda vs. Arizona clearly states, "The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it." (Miranda vs. Arizona)

According to the case Sleazy was not made aware that he had the privilege and in addition it was not explained to him that as a consequence of discussing his actions that he could be charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. In the case of Miranda vs. Arizona the Supreme Court held that "It is only through an awareness of these consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege."...

Arizona) The fact that Sleazy was unaware of the consequences made it impossible for him to understand the need to exercise the privilege. The lack of warning also impeded his ability to understand that he was being "faced with a phase of the adversary system - that he was not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest." (Miranda vs. Arizona)
Was the defense counsel's representation of Sleazy so ineffective that it deprived him of a fair trial as guaranteed by the sixth amendment?

The defense counsel's representation was so ineffective that it deprived Sleazy of his sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. In the case of Strickland vs. Washington Justice O'Connor stated that a, "convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient... Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." (Strickland vs. Washington)

The fact that she was doodling and oblivious to the case that the prosecution was presenting demonstrated her deficiency as a counselor. In addition, the fact that the counselor did not cross-examine any of the prosecutions witnesses or the evidence that was presented would lead one to believe that she was not prepared and thus deficient. The counselor's tactics of not allowing the defendant to testify in his own defense and not providing the court with a closing statement that refuted all of the prosecutions evidence in detail also displayed a deficient performance that prejudiced the defense.

For these reasons we can conclude that the defense counsels representation was so ineffective that it deprived the defendant…