Criminal Law

Sample Solution

   

Whether Hand was entitled to Miranda warnings

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that suspects must be advised of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present before they can be questioned in a custodial interrogation. A custodial interrogation is any questioning that takes place in a situation where a reasonable person would feel like they are not free to leave.

In the case of Hand, he was in bed with a woman when he was awakened by armed agents pointing shotguns at him. He was then questioned about his plans. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would feel like they were not free to leave, so Hand was entitled to Miranda warnings.

Full Answer Section

      The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all people, regardless of their citizenship status, from being compelled to incriminate themselves. This means that Hand, as a non-citizen, was entitled to the Miranda warnings just like any other suspect. Whether Hand’s questioning was custodial The question of whether Hand’s questioning was custodial is a close one. On the one hand, he was in his own home when he was questioned, which might suggest that he was not in custody. However, the fact that he was awakened by armed agents pointing shotguns at him suggests that he was not free to leave. Ultimately, it is up to a judge to decide whether Hand’s questioning was custodial. Whether McFadden’s statement about Jaxon’s family constitutes custodial interrogation McFadden’s statement to Jaxon about his family could be considered custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation occurs when a suspect is questioned while they are in custody and the questioning is likely to elicit an incriminating response. In this case, Jaxon was in custody because he was being transported by the police. McFadden’s statement about Jaxon’s family was likely to elicit an incriminating response because it made Jaxon fear for the safety of his family. Whether Hand’s statement can be used against him in a court of law Whether Hand’s statement can be used against him in a court of law will depend on whether his rights were violated. If Hand’s questioning was custodial and he was not given Miranda warnings, then his statement cannot be used against him in court. However, if Hand’s questioning was not custodial or he was given Miranda warnings, then his statement can be used against him in court. In conclusion, it is likely that Hand was entitled to Miranda warnings and that his questioning was custodial. However, it is up to a judge to decide these issues. If Hand’s rights were violated, then his statement cannot be used against him in court.