Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Deus Ex Machina
New member
Are you good with law-related stuff? Specifically, due process, crime control, and class justice perspectives??? I need some help...
2Thick -- or anyone good at law
- Thread starter Deus Ex Machina
- Start date
Deus Ex Machina
New member
ok i'll type this as blunt as possible, but with salient info.
Ok, the case is Brewer -- basically a man named Williams killed a little girl in another jurisdiction, got a lawyer, turned himself in, was Mirandized many times, arraigned by a judge, and then transported back to the original jurisdiction he comitted his crime in. Before Williams was transported, his lawyers advised him, and the detective who was going to transport him, that there would be no communication, and no talking about the murder. the detective agreed. during the car ride, the detective knew Williams was a religious man, and gave a "Christian burial speech" (basically said the murdered girl deserved a proper Christian burial) to Williams. The detective didn't want Williams to say anything, but just "to think about it".... well, a few mins later Williams led the detective to the girl's dead body, and then in court Williams was guilty of first degree murder.
habeas corpus issued
a federal district court said the evidence was wrongly admitted, because Williams' 6th amendment right to counsel was violated by the detective
USSC grants certiorari
Chief Justice Stewart said that the "Christian burial speech" was a form of interrogation, and Williams was basically coaxed into showing the detective the body.
he affirms a judgement, letting Williams have a new trial without the evidence (dead body of girl).
----------------------------------------------
this is for a CLASS JUSTICE perspective
Ok, now I need to know how the outcome of this decision was because of law enforcement praxis, immersed in historical momentum.
this is what i put so far:
As it was mentioned above, Brewer reinforces the 6th Amendment protection of the accused. Chief Justice Stewart points out that Detective Leaming, who knew Williams was being represented by two lawyers, designedly and deliberately set out to elicit information from Williams. It is exactly this type of relationship that the accused and law enforcement has, and had, since government started. Brewer resulted when unconventional law enforcement praxis was immersed in historical momentum. <I need to explain the latter statement>
Ok, the case is Brewer -- basically a man named Williams killed a little girl in another jurisdiction, got a lawyer, turned himself in, was Mirandized many times, arraigned by a judge, and then transported back to the original jurisdiction he comitted his crime in. Before Williams was transported, his lawyers advised him, and the detective who was going to transport him, that there would be no communication, and no talking about the murder. the detective agreed. during the car ride, the detective knew Williams was a religious man, and gave a "Christian burial speech" (basically said the murdered girl deserved a proper Christian burial) to Williams. The detective didn't want Williams to say anything, but just "to think about it".... well, a few mins later Williams led the detective to the girl's dead body, and then in court Williams was guilty of first degree murder.
habeas corpus issued
a federal district court said the evidence was wrongly admitted, because Williams' 6th amendment right to counsel was violated by the detective
USSC grants certiorari
Chief Justice Stewart said that the "Christian burial speech" was a form of interrogation, and Williams was basically coaxed into showing the detective the body.
he affirms a judgement, letting Williams have a new trial without the evidence (dead body of girl).
----------------------------------------------
this is for a CLASS JUSTICE perspective
Ok, now I need to know how the outcome of this decision was because of law enforcement praxis, immersed in historical momentum.
this is what i put so far:
As it was mentioned above, Brewer reinforces the 6th Amendment protection of the accused. Chief Justice Stewart points out that Detective Leaming, who knew Williams was being represented by two lawyers, designedly and deliberately set out to elicit information from Williams. It is exactly this type of relationship that the accused and law enforcement has, and had, since government started. Brewer resulted when unconventional law enforcement praxis was immersed in historical momentum. <I need to explain the latter statement>
Deus Ex Machina said:
Basically, indirectly influencing or communicating with a suspect that has chosen (and instructed by his lawyer) to exercise his right to remain silent and to avoid communication with LEO's without the presence of his lawyer is the same as interrogating him. This type of judicial interpretation is necessary in order to prevent loopholes from developing for LEO officers to exploit and eventually use as routine LE praxis.
LE praxis has historically been pushing the envelope of Constituional rights in order to find an achilles tendon in them. This case of 6th Amendment infringement is the equivalent of a child testing the limits of a parent.
Deus Ex Machina
New member
2Thick said:
Beautiful. Thanks a lot...Basically I needed just your second part, since it described the historical reasons of why the case began in the first place (wrongful LE praxis). This is what I thought of as well:
"To be someone accused of a crime, and to be in presence of law enforcement officials, who aggressively want to prosecute those who they accuse, is intimidating. Law enforcement has a deep history of intimidating the accused in order to obtain self-incriminatory evidence. Detective Leaming did not warn Williams of his right to counsel before giving his “Christian burial speech” and it is exactly this reason that Chief Justice Stewart affirms Brewer. "
karma for you, if i can give it.
BTW, what aspect of law did you study?
pitbullstl
New member
2Thick said:
Hyuck....Hyuck........it's good to see all dem smarts ain't wasted on dem conspiracy theories.........
Deus Ex Machina
New member
2Thick, can you go over these last two, and maybe make changes and/or offer your critique? Thanks
----------------------------------------
Crime Control.
Brewer is a disgrace to the effective methods of prosecuting criminals, specifically, violent ones. Brewer gives more rights to criminals, thus reducing the chances for law enforcement officials to carry out their investigatory duties. The Brewer decision is an obstacle to crime control ideology because it grossly impedes: efficiency of crime control, and factually guilty prosecutions. No longer will the efficiency of crime control be idolized, because now a criminal, even when advised of Miranda and advised numerous times by lawyers not to speak, can bask in full-knowledge of a crime without any interference from law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement officials can no longer resort to simple interrogation techniques, even if the evidence admitted by these techniques is physically obtained. The evidence, which would prove a criminal factually guilty, would be null and void of any prosecutorial use, thus letting criminals go, and thus giving criminals more incentive and scope to commit more crimes against society.
Due Process.
Chief Justice Stewart rules in favor of the protection of Constitutional rights and of the accused. Law enforcement will have further restrictions on violating the rights of the accused. Brewer reinforces the scope of the 6th Amendment and reduces the amount of coerced and ill-gotten evidence. Brewer is an excellent example of the "protection of an individual’s rights via the mistrust of official power." Brewer further protects an individual’s rights by making shifty interrogation techniques an anachronism of police procedure. Law Enforcement officials have great pressures, moral and virtuous, to convict an individual accused of a crime, especially a heinous one. These pressures can even force some law enforcement officials into administrating unconventional methods to obtain information. Chief Justice Stewart duly notices this and rightfully upholds the Brewer decision.
----------------------------------------
Crime Control.
Brewer is a disgrace to the effective methods of prosecuting criminals, specifically, violent ones. Brewer gives more rights to criminals, thus reducing the chances for law enforcement officials to carry out their investigatory duties. The Brewer decision is an obstacle to crime control ideology because it grossly impedes: efficiency of crime control, and factually guilty prosecutions. No longer will the efficiency of crime control be idolized, because now a criminal, even when advised of Miranda and advised numerous times by lawyers not to speak, can bask in full-knowledge of a crime without any interference from law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement officials can no longer resort to simple interrogation techniques, even if the evidence admitted by these techniques is physically obtained. The evidence, which would prove a criminal factually guilty, would be null and void of any prosecutorial use, thus letting criminals go, and thus giving criminals more incentive and scope to commit more crimes against society.
Due Process.
Chief Justice Stewart rules in favor of the protection of Constitutional rights and of the accused. Law enforcement will have further restrictions on violating the rights of the accused. Brewer reinforces the scope of the 6th Amendment and reduces the amount of coerced and ill-gotten evidence. Brewer is an excellent example of the "protection of an individual’s rights via the mistrust of official power." Brewer further protects an individual’s rights by making shifty interrogation techniques an anachronism of police procedure. Law Enforcement officials have great pressures, moral and virtuous, to convict an individual accused of a crime, especially a heinous one. These pressures can even force some law enforcement officials into administrating unconventional methods to obtain information. Chief Justice Stewart duly notices this and rightfully upholds the Brewer decision.
Deus Ex Machina
New member
^
Deus Ex Machina said:
You might want to tone down the rhetoric a little. The officer made the mistake of infringing on the man's Constitutional rights (no matter how vile his actions were).
In fact, Brewer helps all Americans, including LEOs, because it draws a line in the sand. If the LEOs are so inept as to fail to find enough evidence, then they are to blame, not the laws. You might want to mention both sides of the coin, just in case someone might mistake you for Ashcroft.
LEOs already have a wide range of interrogation techniques and can exploit them if properly trained. If the criminal is just that smart, then he deserves to get away with it.
You assume that the constitutionally correct ruling is placing restrictions on officers. It is not. Inalienable rights are called 'inalienable' for a reason. The officers never had the right to do what they did, so they are not being restricted. They are being taught the Constitution.
As a final note. Even though you pull it together at the end, you certainly have an Ashcroft sound to you. Seriously.
Deus Ex Machina
New member
lol thanks 2Thick..
I was supposed to write those as if I were a person with deep passions for each of the CC, DP, and CJ perspectives.
My instructor didn't want me to be completely objective.
As for the Ashcroft comments, is that good or bad?
I was supposed to write those as if I were a person with deep passions for each of the CC, DP, and CJ perspectives.
My instructor didn't want me to be completely objective.
As for the Ashcroft comments, is that good or bad?
PIGEON-RAT
New member
2THICK = thE MAN
Similar threads
