Troy Stone Is Showing How the Police Research Paper

Excerpt from Research Paper :

Troy Stone is showing how the police engaged in questionable tactics. This is based upon the fact that they have a witness who identified him. Yet, they were not able to come up with any corroborating evidence to directly link him to the murder. To make matters worse, they violated his constitutional rights in the process. These issues are highlighting how there were questionable tactics used to obtain the confession. To fully understand what is occurring requires focusing on: possible arguments which can be raised on Stone's behalf, if there was a violation of his constitutional rights and case law that supports these claims. Together, these elements will illustrate how Stone's civil rights were violated during the course of the investigation.

Discuss the arguments you think Taylor will raise on Stone's behalf regarding the lineup, interrogation, and confession.

There are a number of arguments which can be raised that will demonstrate how police ignored the basic constitutional protections under the law. As far as the lineup is concerned, detectives did not collect any kind of corroborating evidence to support Garcia's claims that Stone was involved in the murder. This means that after receiving the positive identification, they did not check on Garcia's story or if Stone had an alibi. Instead, they are working based upon one person's account vs. checking other facts to see if Garcia is telling the truth.

If they had followed these procedures before or after the lineup, there is a realistic possibility that someone could verify the whereabouts of Stone, Garcia or both. This would have repudiated any kind of testimony Garcia gave to the police about these events. It is at this point, when they could have immediately ruled Stone out as a suspect or confirmed his involvement.

The interrogation is completely unethical, illegal and manipulative. In this case, the detectives claimed that they were asking Stone a few questions which lasted a total of 36 hours. When he asked to speak with his parents or an attorney, they failed to allow him to do so. Only after becoming exhausted and promising to let him to rest, is when Stone finally confesses to the crime. Moreover, his story continued to remain the same throughout the interrogation until he became exhausted.

To make matters worse, they failed to notify Stone's parents that he was in custody. They only found out about what happened, after they showed up at the police station to file a missing person's report. It is at this point, when they were made aware that he was in police custody. These circumstances are showing how detectives failed to notify anyone about what was happening. This is demonstrating that they were not taking into account the rights of the suspect or the fact that he was a minor.

The confession is obviously obtained under duress and fraud. This occurred with the detectives promising to leave Stone alone if he admitted to his involvement in the crime. It was only after 36 hours when they make this kind of arrangement with him. At the same time, they did not allow Stone the opportunity to rest. These circumstances are illustrating how detectives believed they had the perpetrator and were determined to obtain a confession at any cost.

Identify if the situation has violated Stone's Fifth Amendment rights. Justify your opinion. Also, have Stone's Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment rights been violated?

The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capita, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor deprive of life, liberty or property without due process of law." In this particular case, Stone's Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was held without charge for 36 hours and forced to confess. This is a form of self-incrimination. At the same time, the police did not receive any kind of warrant for his arrest from a Grand Jury. Instead, they began asking him questions about the crime, without establishing his involvement or providing any kind of evidence to support their views. ("Bill of Rights," 2012)

As far as the Sixth Amendment is concerned the Constitution says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." The detectives clearly violated this provision when Stone requested to speak with an attorney and they refused. Moreover, they did not check to see if any witnesses can verify where he was or confirm Garcia's story. ("Bill of Rights," 2012)

The Fourteenth Amendment states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In the case involving Stone, it is clear that detectives violated his life and liberty without providing him access to due process of law. Furthermore, the way they believed Garcia, is indicating that they did not provide equal protection under the law to Stone. ("Fourteenth Amendment," 2013)

As a result, it is clear that Stone had his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated by the police. This occurred with them failing to offer him the chance to defend himself through: providing witnesses (which can corroborate his story), they did not give him access to a lawyer, none of their evidence was presented to a Grand Jury (when they detained him) and they directly favored the views of Garcia over Stone. These factors are illustrating how detectives violated his civil rights by refusing to follow these constitutional protections.

Case Law that Support these Arguments and Strategies the Prosecution will use.

The case law that the defense can use to have the charges and the confession against Stone thrown out include: Miranda v. Arizona and Mapp v. Ohio. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that every suspect must be read their basic rights when they are being interrogated by police. This includes: their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during all questioning. The fact that a confession was obtained without offering him access to counsel when requested is a direct violation of these provisions. Furthermore, the continued interrogation for 36 hours is illustrating how the detectives were determined to trick Stone into confessing by wearing him down. ("Miranda v. Arizona," 2013)

M app v. Ohio is relevant to this case because the detectives knowingly violated Stone's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. This occurred when they obtained the confession from him illegally for the murder. Under this ruling, any evidence that is collected utilizing these tactics is inadmissible in court under the exclusionary rule. ("Mapp v. Ohio," 2012)

These two cases will help to support the arguments made by Stone's attorney. As he can show that the police knowingly violated his basic constitutional rights. This occurred with him not being allowed to talk with an attorney when he asked. At the same time, the police did not read him his rights, let him know what he is being charged with or contact his parents. This means the confession was obtained under false pretenses, duress and misrepresentation. Under previous case precedent, any kind of evidence that is collected (such as: the confession) will be thrown out. ("Miranda v. Arizona," 2013) ("Mapp v. Ohio," 2012)

Moreover, the defense could cite Gideon v. Wainrwright, Powell v. Alabama and Scott v. Illinois. This states the any criminal suspect is entitled to legal counsel when they are being questioned or detained by police. The fact…

Cite This Research Paper:

"Troy Stone Is Showing How The Police" (2013, May 13) Retrieved September 26, 2017, from

"Troy Stone Is Showing How The Police" 13 May 2013. Web.26 September. 2017. <>

"Troy Stone Is Showing How The Police", 13 May 2013, Accessed.26 September. 2017,