Flashcards Studio

Facts: A police team arrests Miguel for alleged theft at a supermarket and brings him to the precinct for custodial investigation. He is not informed of his rights to remain silent or to consult with an attorney, nor are any warnings given about the possible use of his statements as evidence. After 9 minutes, Miguel says, “I want to talk to my lawyer.” The officers ignore his request and continue questioning for another 7 minutes, during which Miguel signs a typed confession admitting his participation in the theft. His counsel later moves to suppress the confession as a violation of his rights under custodial investigation.
(a) Identify the rights of a person under custodial investigation that were violated in this scenario and who violated them.
(b) Is Miguel’s written confession admissible in evidence? Explain governing doctrine and apply it to the facts.
(c) If the police had properly informed Miguel of his rights and allowed him to consult with counsel, would the confession still be admissible? Why or why not?