Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
Unit IV BCJ: Case Study
The aspects of the matters in the case can be classified as hearsay. This is primarily because of the statements made by the suspects during the detention. A police officer had overheard one suspect, explaining the reason for the detention. The suspect further requested the relative to pay for the missing wares to avert the possibility of being charged. This statement is classified as hearsay as it describes a circumstance made while or without delay after the accused perceived it (Finck & Slater, 2011). A further oral statement made by the owners of the missing wares is perceived to be the truth of the matters asserted. Hearsay exceptions and exemptions apply in this case study like for instance the possibility of excited utterances of the victims. It is possible that stress conditions pushed the suspect to make some statements.
The suspects gave statements that can be characterized as confessions. The confessions were not given freely by the suspects. It is possible to affirm that the stressful conditions made, the suspects to confess to their relatives. They were apprehended by a group of people and forced to sit in the middle of the stage. All activities in the festival had been stopped and all attention directed to the suspects. The vendors were angry because their wares had been stolen and were demanding for the compensation. All these stressful scenarios could have forced the suspects to ask for help from their relatives. It is in fact the reason that their statements had not been voluntarily obtained. The Miranda rule was correctly enforced by the police officers when they took the time to read the rights of the suspects.
Law enforcement involves providing the suspect with enough information on their basic rights (Goldstein et al, 2011). It is possible to confirm the idea that the police officers partly violated the Miranda rule. This happens during their trip to the local jail. The police officers interrogated the suspects on their whereabouts during and after the period of accusations. The police officers did the interrogation in the absence of any attorney for the suspects. In this regard it is plausible to conclude that these admissions and information given during this entire period cannot be used during the trials.
From the neighborhood perspective, the aspects of the matters cannot be classified as hearsay. This is because hearsay is effectively defined as the statements made in or out of the courts under oaths. According to the police officers a statement had been overheard that incriminated the suspects. Such statements are made by the suspects to their relatives in an effort to be bailed out of the stressful conditions. In addition, the oral statement was made by the vendors to the missing wares, although the missing items are not recovered from the suspects. The police officers are seriously disadvantaged because they can only bank on the information given by the vendors as opposed to lacking any physical evidence.
The neighborhood vantage point clearly illustrates the confessions of information gathered at the scene. The suspects provide statements that can be characterized as confessions. However, it is evident that the confession made by the suspects is not freely obtained. It is possible to assert that the unfavorable setting forced the suspects to confess to their relatives. The suspects requested for help to avoid being charged by the police officers. They do not claim or admit to stealing the wares belonging to the vendors. Instead, they explain in details the conditions that pushed them drove them to their current predicament. It is in fact the reason that their statements had not been voluntarily obtained. The Miranda rule was in the approved manner enforced by the police officers who gave the suspect the permission to their silence.
Law enforcement engrosses granting enough information to the suspect during arrest. It is important for law enforcement officers explain all the rights that a suspect ideally has. Law enforcers are not allowed to conduct interrogations before confirming the suspects’ basic rights (Goldstein et al, 2011). However the police officers interrogated the suspects during the trip to the local jail. This they did absence of any attorney for the suspects. In this regard it is conceivable to bring to a close that these admissions and information given during this entire period cannot be used during the trials. The suspects had therefore waived their fifth and sixth amendment and constitutional right.
From the suspect’s relative perspective, the aspects of the matters can be classified as hearsay. This is because hearsay is efficiently clear as the statements under oaths (Prentsaz, 2005). According to the police officers a statement had been overheard that incriminated the suspects. The police officers recorded such statements in the absence of any oath. In addition the statements are made by the suspects to their relatives in an effort to be bailed out of the stressful conditions. It is sufficient to conclude that the verbal statements obtained from the vendors are not a credible source. This is because of the fact that there are no items recovered from the suspects even after the immediate arrests or claims. It is not wise to bank on the statements offered by the vendors.
The information obtained from the suspect cannot be classified as credible confessions. The suspects had forced by circumstances to request financial help from their relatives. The suspects request for this help primarily to avoid arrests. However, it is evident that the perceived confession made by the suspects is not voluntarily obtained. It is possible to assert that the unfavorable setting forced the suspects to confess to their relatives. The suspect only engages in explanatory details of their trepidation. They do this to their relatives in order to avoid being charged and they do not, in fact accept any liability to the charges. Miranda rule is thus not effectively enforced by the police officers. This is because they interrogated the suspects in the absence of their attorneys.
The right to maintain silence is a fundamental right to any suspect (Prentsaz, 2005). This is solely because statements made by any suspect could be used for or against the suspect in the judicial proceedings. The distinction in the definition of hearsay is non important consideration in hearsay law. The most difficult lens that was challenging to discuss this case scenario was the neighborhood association. This is because it is difficult to ascertain the credibility of any information gathered from the scene. It is challenging to effectively protect the Miranda rights of the accused persons as well as keep a vigil watch on the act of stealing.
References
Finck, K., Slater L. (2011). Social work practice and the law. Berlin: Springer Publishing Company.
Goldstein A., Goldstein, S., & Naomi, E. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York. Chelsea House Publishers
Prentsaz, G. S. (2005). Miranda Rights: Protecting the Rights of the Accused. New York. The Rosen Publishing Group Inc