Pre-Sentence Investigation Defense Attorney

Jim Aiken

Narcotics Detective

Homicide Detective

Miranda

The Miranda rights were formulated in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme court after a case between Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights relate to the frights of an individual when that person is being taken into custody by the police and before that individual is being questioned. The individual should be read out and told about his rights according to the Fifth Amendment so that the individual does not make any self-incriminating statements to the police.

There are four things that the police needs to tell the individual while being taken in to custody are:

The individual has the right to remain silent

Anything the individual says can and will be used against that individual in court of law

The individual has the right to an attorney

If that individual cannot afford an attorney, an attorney would be appointed for the individual (Prentzas, 2006)

This case has changed the way legal the police functions and has given some fundamental rights to the individual being taken into custody by the police. It has left a significant impact in the process of arresting or detention and questioning.

(B)

The Miranda case clearly makes it mandatory that if the police fails to inform the individual being arrested or questioned and in case a statement or confession made based on the statement, then the statement made would be presumed to be involuntary and cannot be used against the accused in the court of law. Therefore in the case at hand, all of Smith's statements and confessions that have been taken without reading him the Miranda rights would be thrown out of the case as it would be assumed that the statement or confession is unlawful. Any money recovery that has been made on the basis of the confession of Smith would also be thrown out of the case as the unlawful confession was the sole basis of the discovery (Ruschmann, 2007).

Jewelry Store Robbery

(A)

According to the Ohio Journal of Science, technology is defined as: "the things that transforms the natural world through innovative processes, systems, structures and devices to extend human abilities." ('What are Science, Technology and Engineering', 2010)

The fourth amendment of the American Constitution also describes the right of the people to be secure in their persons and defines the parameters of unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment says that the right cannot be violated " and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Clancy, n.d.)

Therefore the fourth amendment makes it incumbent that every search and operation conducted by the government must ask whether the search would violate an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy and is the privacy accepted by society as reasonable (Solove, n.d.).

To prove that the search conducted by the police investigator was not unlawful would be the use of cameras. The cameras could have been mounted on the policeman's car and the policeman could have conducted the search in full view of the camera. CCTV footages from the surroundings would be another proof that the search was legitimate and legal.

(B)

In light of the Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) case the police investigator was well within his rights to stop the suspect and frisk him. The landmark judgment allows a police personnel to bypass the Fourth Amendment in case the police offer finds a reasonable suspicion that the person "has committed or is committing or is about to commit a crime" and in case the policeman has reasonable cause to believe that the suspect could be armed (Justia Law, 2015). In this case the jewelry shop had been robbed several times before and there were reasonable doubts in the policeman's mind to suspect the three arrested persons. The policeman was within his rights according to the ruling of Supreme Court to conduct the search after the surface search revealed possibility of a weapon. Therefore the act of the policeman was justified (Justia Law, 2015).

(C)

The effectiveness of the law enforcement agencies have been increased by the Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) case. In cases where there are reasons to suspect that an individual is armed and potentially dangerous policemen can, without any search warrant, can conduct searches and seizures and avoid restrictions imposed by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in relation searches and seizures.

Rape Investigation

(A)

The Combined DNA Index System or the CODIS is...

This technology involves the process of collection of biological material evidence recovered from the scene of crime or from on the victim. The samples are then submitted for DNA typing and then the results are sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's database of DNA profiles. The DNA profiles are matched with known DNA profiles of convicted offenders, unsolved crime scenes and missing persons. This helps to identify the rapist in case the rapist is a repeat offender. All the states in the U.S. are allowed to type and store DNA samples of convicted rapists which are used electronically to compare samples and known DNA types already stored in the with the database.
This technology has made dramatic changes to the way rape investigations are done and affected the results dramatically in rape investigations.

(B)

The Supreme Court has accepted the importance of the use of technology in investigations but has primarily objected to the way it was used and has often opined that such use have violated the Fourth Amendment rights. .

The primary use of technology by law enforcement has been to collect evidence against a criminal suspect. The Supreme has most often refused to consider evidence that used any new technologies in criminal cases when such evidence was obtained without consent of the suspect and without a warrant as was necessary under the Fourth Amendment.

In the Olmsted v. United States case, the Supreme Court had not violated the Fourth Amendment and had not trespassed any laws in placing the tapping wires.

In the case of Irvine v. California, Silverman v. United States and Charles Katz, for example, the Supreme Court refused to admit any evidence that were placed without a proper warrant in pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and sis not include non-tangible information that were obtained from means such as wiretapping or eavesdropping (Digitalcommons.apus.edu, 2015).

Pre-Sentence Investigation

(A)

As a probation officer investigating the presentencing situation for a 14-year-old juvenile, the approach would be entirely based on the Supreme court ruling in the case of Miller v Alabama case. The purpose of the presentence investigation is to investigate the history and the background of the person convicted of a crime before sentencing in order to ascertain whether there is any reason for reducing the harshness of a sentence that is expected to be delivered by the judge or whether the convict is a habitual offender which requires strict punishments.

The Miller v Alabama case has raised questions about whether a minor can be served a life sentence without parole and whether such a sentence is against the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' of the U.S. constitution that prohibit cruel and unusual punishment for individuals (Law.cornell.edu, 2015).

As a probation officer it is important to judge the history of the juvenile and ascertain whether a harsh punishment like a life imprisonment without parole would be applicable for the 14-year-old. It also needs to be seen whether the convict is a habitual offender.

(B)

The Miller v Alabama case changed the way sentencing is done in the U.S. The history of the conviction process has been considered in most cases before delivering the sentence and this has given a human touch to the sentencing process.

Hinckley

The model Penal Code test, as a defense for Hinckley, if it can be established that he was mentally insane then the judges can be convinced of not considering the incident as a criminal offence. In that case a criminal defendant would be found not guilty by reason of insanity in case the defendant could be diagnosed with a mental defect like severe mental retardation or schizophrenia disorder and when the incident occurred the defendant could not either understand and assimilate the criminality of the conduct or manage the conduct as required by the law.

Therefore if the defense of Hinckley claimed that he was insane at the time of the incident, then the onus falls on prosecution to establish the defendant was not insane. If it could be established that Hinckley had been suffering from a mental disorder that disables him not know right from wrong or lacked the ability to control an impulse, then he cannot be convicted from the crime (Dubber, n.d.).

(B)

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was a major reform in the U.S. criminal justice system with respect to trail of and proving of sanity or insanity of the defendant. Contrary to the previous law -- the Model Penal Code test to determine mental state, the onus to prove that the defendant was insane lies with the defense of the…