Appeal Case

Paper Summary:

In this article, the writer presents an examination of a case in which the defendant in the case is found guilty and appeals. The writer notes that the element used for appeal rests in the fact that an undercover officer visited the convicted felon after he was arrested and incarcerated for the charge and the prosecution used conversations that occurred during those visits to help convict the defendant. The writer points out that the undercover officer never identified himself as a cop during the visits and these visits were before the trial. The writer explains that this means that the officer questioned the defendant after arrest and after being represented by an attorney but before the trial, which infringed on the defendant's right to be represented during all questioning.

Outline:
Issue
Rule
Apply
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"Once that arrest took place however and Bob was then indicted by the court system and the grand jury Bob was represented by an attorney of record. The law is very clear on the questioning of a person who is represented by an attorney. The issue surrounding the possible appeal of this case is the fact that Art did not at anytime identify himself as a cop during the visits to the jail following the indictment. There may also be some argument and merit to the fact that Art secretly taped the conversations that he had with Bob as in many states the taping of a conversation is illegal unless both parties are aware of the taping, however, there are some states, Tennessee for example, that allow taping if only one party is aware that the taping is occurring. Because the scenario does not discuss the state that this crime took place in it is wise to only argue the merit of Art visiting Bob and in that visit gathering information to use against him at his trial when he did not have an attorney present. At that point the argument is also valid that Art did not identify himself as a police officer thereby violating Bob's right to have counsel present during the visits or to even make the educated decision as to whether or not he wanted Art to visit him."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Klein, Allison (2005) lLawyer Prohibits Inmate's Questioning; Convict, Victim Were on Md. Prison Bus The Washington Post
• Marcus, Ruth (1990) High Court Limits Police In Questioning Suspects; Miranda Rule on Lawyer's Presence Widened The Washington Post
• Richard, Leo (2001) Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century. Michigan Law Review;

More papers on Appeal Case:

• Case Study # 146499 : "A Recap of the Scott Peterson Case"
• Case Study # 119669 : "Law Case Study: "J. A. Pye vs. Graham"
• Case Study # 136739 : "Case Brief and Comment"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: