U.S. Supreme Court Case Report - New York Times Vs. United States

Name: Instructor`s name: Course: Date: America Supreme Court Case Report Introduction It is important to understand that the confession rule is clearly stipulated by the court`s new constitution and should be followed to the letter. The main purpose of the law is to handle, address and question people in custody. The law gives arresting authority so that the suspects and the victims know the implications of their confession to their final judgment. This is done by letting them know they have the right to remain silence, that any issue he or she communicates may be used against him, has the right to obtain an attorney without charges and he also has the rights to present an attorney during the time of questioning. In order to achieve this rights some statement of rejections are usually needed, as well as, tricks. This paper will seek to analyze the U.S. Supreme Court Case Report, New York Times vs. United States. The Supreme Court and the U.S. constitution, clearly do not allow the prosecuting attorney or police officers as well as detectives, to question the defendant while in custody. Likewise the law does not allow any form of contact with the outside environment (Rosen, 2). Consequently, according to the law, none of the defendant is given effective and full warning of his rights during the interrogation process. As illustrated in both cases, the questioning involved oral admissions and signed agreements which were admitted in trials. It was also stated that the defendant were exceptionally convicted by the court law number 584 and were later affirmed in the court of appeal (Rosen, 4) According to the Supreme Court law of America, the prosecution could not use written or oral statement to decide on the victim`s case. The statements stemming from questioning of the victim by the law enforcement officers in custody, was illegal unless it followed the procedural safeguards effectives to secure the 5th Amendments privilege against self- incrimination. It continued to elaborate that the environment as well as the atmosphere of incommunicado interrogation should be improved. Depending on the way it exists nowadays, no one should be intimidated at work or undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. As elaborated in the clause that states that unless satisfactory defensive measures were enacted to dispel the compulsion inherent in the custodial ecosystem. There was no statement gained from the defendant that could surely be the product of the defendant free choice, as it was presented on page 445 and 458 (Greenburg, 445). The action in Escobedo v. Illinois, number 378 America 478, emphasized the need for saving devises which ease process of police interrogation and add credibility into them. The saving devises are also approved to command the privilege illustrated in page 465-466. It also elaborated on the privilege against the self-incrimination, which contained an expansive historical improvement in the U.S. The law gives the defendant the right to remain silent unless he or she decided to communicate in the unfettered exercise, basing on his or her own decisions. However, the exercise was practiced during the time of custodian interrogation, aselaborated in page 458 to 465 of the country`s law and during the...