Essay Example on Mr. Arnold Stallone’s incriminating statements

They base this on their belief that Officer Cyrus was purposely implying that Stallone respond and answer during interrogation Defense uses case Missouri v Seibert 542 US 600 2004 to explain why they believe this was unlawful According to Missouri v Seibert Oyez 17 Jan 2018 www oyez org cases 2003 02 1371 Miranda confession is only admissible if the Miranda warning and accompanying break are sufficient to give the suspect the reasonable belief that she has the right not to speak with the police Therefore if Officer Cyrus conducted a two stage interview and Mr Stallone s warning of his rights weren t sufficient enough for him to believe he has the right to not speak to the police defense would be right to say that his rights were violated but this is not the case Oyez As prosecution correctly emphasizes this was not a two stage interview because there was no break between the statement officer Cyrus made and the reading of Miranda According to Colorado v Connelly 479 U S 157 1986 a suspect s statements are inadmissible if there was some sort of government coercion that affected their decision to confess but Since Officer Cyrus said although in a sketchy way this will be your only opportunity and now is your chance the words opportunity and chance emphasize that they have another option so this cannot be considered coercion Connelly Next Officer Cyrus told him his other choices by reading him his rights before Mr Stallone even said anything that could possibly incriminate himself 

Therefore any information obtained due to a defendant s own mistake not the government s could be used against them in trial Connelly After being Mirandized Mr Stallone was asked if he understood his rights and replied with I watch Law and Order I know my Miranda rights According to North Carolina v Butler 441 US 369 1979 an explicit waiver is not necessary to prove the knowledge and understanding of one s rights but even here Officer cyrus asked another time whether he was sure he wanted to waive his rights and he replied yes By Mr Stallones portrayal of confidence in his understanding of his rights as well as waiving them a second time although putting him in a bad spot fully makes him accountable for his statements said during interrogation Prosecution correctly states when held to a standard of a preponderance of the evidence the confession is proved voluntary and therefore admissible Butler Moreover as stated in Florida v Powell Oyez 17 Jan 2018 www oyez org cases 2009 08 1175 that while Miranda requires that a suspect be warned prior to any questioning and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney it does not dictate the words in which the essential information must be conveyed Rather to determine whether police warnings are satisfactory the inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conveyed to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda Since Mr Stallones rights were conveyed and read to him there is no issue with using any statement he said during interrogation against him Oyez Therefore the opinion of the court is that Mr Stallones statements made during interrogation can be used as evidence against him Ruling this way is in line with established precedent and shows that the government fights for the sake of justice