Introduction
The facts of present case are clear in that after the police suspected Charles had murdered his neighbour, they gathered enough evidence for the probable cause and obtained the arrest warrant. It is upon this that Charles was arrested and placed under police custody. As far the above is concerned, Charles was and can be construed to have been under police custody under meaning described in the findings in Miranda v Arizona.
Questioning of a suspect under custody
Under such circumstances as Charles was, the United States Supreme Court has plainly declared that before any questioning of an accused or suspect, he/she should be given the Miranda warning or read Miranda rights. At this point we are told that Detective Clark, properly advised Charles of his Miranda right however Charles agreed to talk to him. In deciding to talk to the police it can be construed that Charles decided to waive his constitutional rights including that to remain silent, as well as that to have counsel being present.
The facts of the present case state that after properly giving the Miranda warning (rights) Charles made some statements which were or can be acknowledged to have been incriminating with no clear cut confession. It is at this point we are informed that the detective conceptualizing that Charles was about to confess he intensified his questioning at the same time, Charles mother appoints an attorney who immediately telephones the detective notifying him of his appointments to represent Charles
Problem and Arguments
Now the problem presented is that: since detective Clark has given Miranda warnings according to the requirements of the constitution. What effect does this call made to him by this appointed counsel has to him? Generally Miranda rights stems from constitutional guaranteed rights under various amendments including amendment VI that reads in part “… and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. In state v Huysman, Warren APP. NO CA 2005-09-107, quoting Miranda 384 US at 444 “Prosecution may not use statements whether exculpatory or exculpatory stemming from a custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of the procedural safeguard effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination”
The procedural Safeguards being referred to in the above holding constitute that of Miranda rights. However we are told that detective Clark properly gave Charles Miranda warning or he read him his Miranda rights hence subsequent attempts by defense counsel to anticipatorily invoke the clients Miranda right are ineffective. It is important to note that Miranda rights are constitutional rights available only and only to an accused person under interrogation while in custody.
Therefore constitutionally since Detective Clark has properly given the Miranda warning, he should proceed with the questioning since Charles has decided to waive this right which is available only and only to him. This should not be confused with Amendment VI right to counsel, since under this constitutional provision the right attaches immediately when an accused is indicted or formally charged. While an accused is in custody and asserts his right to counsel it does not matter whether the questioning officer was aware of the claim (assertion) as in Arizona v Robertson 486 US 675.
Conclusion
From the above discussion it is obvious that Detective Clark should proceed with the questioning undeterred by the defense counsel call. This is so because the constitutional safeguard under Miranda is only available to an accused. Upon the suspect waiving this right an attorney would not be heard to say there was violation of constitutional right.
Work cited
- United States Constitution
- Miranda v Arizona 384 US at 444
- Arizona v Robertson 486 US 675.