Unit IV BCJ Case Study

UNIT IV BCJ: CASE STUDY 6

UnitIV BCJ: Case Study

UnitIV BCJ: Case Study

Theaspects of the matters in the case can be classified as hearsay. Thisis primarily because of the statements made by the suspects duringthe detention. A police officer had overheard one suspect, explainingthe reason for the detention. The suspect further requested therelative to pay for the missing wares to avert the possibility ofbeing charged. This statement is classified as hearsay as itdescribes a circumstance made while or without delay after theaccused perceived it (Finck &amp Slater, 2011). A further oralstatement made by the owners of the missing wares is perceived to bethe truth of the matters asserted. Hearsay exceptions and exemptionsapply in this case study like for instance the possibility of excitedutterances of the victims. It is possible that stress conditionspushed the suspect to make some statements.

Thesuspects gave statements that can be characterized as confessions.The confessions were not given freely by the suspects. It is possibleto affirm that the stressful conditions made, the suspects to confessto their relatives. They were apprehended by a group of people andforced to sit in the middle of the stage. All activities in thefestival had been stopped and all attention directed to the suspects.The vendors were angry because their wares had been stolen and weredemanding for the compensation. All these stressful scenarios couldhave forced the suspects to ask for help from their relatives. It isin fact the reason that their statements had not been voluntarilyobtained. The Miranda rule was correctly enforced by the policeofficers when they took the time to read the rights of the suspects.

Lawenforcement involves providing the suspect with enough information ontheir basic rights (Goldstein et al, 2011). It is possible to confirmthe idea that the police officers partly violated the Miranda rule.This happens during their trip to the local jail. The police officersinterrogated the suspects on their whereabouts during and after theperiod of accusations. The police officers did the interrogation inthe absence of any attorney for the suspects. In this regard it isplausible to conclude that these admissions and information givenduring this entire period cannot be used during the trials.

Fromthe neighborhood perspective, the aspects of the matters cannot beclassified as hearsay. This is because hearsay is effectively definedas the statements made in or out of the courts under oaths. Accordingto the police officers a statement had been overheard thatincriminated the suspects. Such statements are made by the suspectsto their relatives in an effort to be bailed out of the stressfulconditions. In addition, the oral statement was made by the vendorsto the missing wares, although the missing items are not recoveredfrom the suspects. The police officers are seriously disadvantagedbecause they can only bank on the information given by the vendors asopposed to lacking any physical evidence.

Theneighborhood vantage point clearly illustrates the confessions ofinformation gathered at the scene. The suspects provide statementsthat can be characterized as confessions. However, it is evidentthat the confession made by the suspects is not freely obtained. Itis possible to assert that the unfavorable setting forced thesuspects to confess to their relatives. The suspects requested forhelp to avoid being charged by the police officers. They do not claimor admit to stealing the wares belonging to the vendors. Instead,they explain in details the conditions that pushed them drove them totheir current predicament. It is in fact the reason that theirstatements had not been voluntarily obtained. The Miranda rule was inthe approved manner enforced by the police officers who gave thesuspect the permission to their silence.

Lawenforcement engrosses granting enough information to the suspectduring arrest. It is important for law enforcement officers explainall the rights that a suspect ideally has. Law enforcers are notallowed to conduct interrogations before confirming the suspects’basic rights (Goldstein et al, 2011). However the police officersinterrogated the suspects during the trip to the local jail. Thisthey did absence of any attorney for the suspects. In this regard itis conceivable to bring to a close that these admissions andinformation given during this entire period cannot be used during thetrials. The suspects had therefore waived their fifth and sixthamendment and constitutional right.

Fromthe suspect’s relative perspective, the aspects of the matters canbe classified as hearsay. This is because hearsay is efficientlyclear as the statements under oaths (Prentsaz, 2005). According tothe police officers a statement had been overheard that incriminatedthe suspects. The police officers recorded such statements in theabsence of any oath. In addition the statements are made by thesuspects to their relatives in an effort to be bailed out of thestressful conditions. It is sufficient to conclude that the verbalstatements obtained from the vendors are not a credible source. Thisis because of the fact that there are no items recovered from thesuspects even after the immediate arrests or claims. It is not wiseto bank on the statements offered by the vendors.

Theinformation obtained from the suspect cannot be classified ascredible confessions. The suspects had forced by circumstances torequest financial help from their relatives. The suspects request forthis help primarily to avoid arrests. However, it is evident that theperceived confession made by the suspects is not voluntarilyobtained. It is possible to assert that the unfavorable settingforced the suspects to confess to their relatives. The suspect onlyengages in explanatory details of their trepidation. They do this totheir relatives in order to avoid being charged and they do not, infact accept any liability to the charges. Miranda rule is thus noteffectively enforced by the police officers. This is because theyinterrogated the suspects in the absence of their attorneys.

Theright to maintain silence is a fundamental right to any suspect(Prentsaz, 2005). This is solely because statements made by anysuspect could be used for or against the suspect in the judicialproceedings. The distinction in the definition of hearsay is nonimportant consideration in hearsay law. The most difficult lens thatwas challenging to discuss this case scenario was the neighborhoodassociation. This is because it is difficult to ascertain thecredibility of any information gathered from the scene. It ischallenging to effectively protect the Miranda rights of the accusedpersons as well as keep a vigil watch on the act of stealing.

References

Finck,K., Slater L. (2011). Socialwork practice and the law.Berlin: Springer Publishing Company.

GoldsteinA., Goldstein, S., &amp Naomi, E. (2010). Evaluatingcapacity to waive Miranda rights.New York. Chelsea House Publishers

Prentsaz,G. S. (2005). MirandaRights: Protecting the Rights of the Accused. NewYork. The Rosen Publishing Group Inc