The criminal
law of United States does a really good job of prosecuting drug traffickers by
penalising the sales, transport and importation of controlled and psychotropic
substances. When the state or federal government classifies a substance as
controlled or psychotropic, distribution of the substance is then controlled by
the governing law. The punishment for violation of the law that prohibits drug
trafficking may cause various penalties according to the geographic area of
distribution, type and quantity of substance and involvement of children.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In the case
study, a man has been arrested by the police on the basis of the crime of drug
trafficking. The man admits to being a drug trafficker but denies the
involvement of children. This case study report will answer some important
questions regarding different aspects of this case. The case studies United
States v. Patane (2004) and Escobedo v. Illinois are used as reference for this

Case study analysis

What motions to dismiss would you
expect to hear from the defence in the case? How would the prosecution counter
these motions? 210

defendant in this case is the man who has been accused of trafficking of
illegal controlled or psychotropic substances and involving children in the
process. According to the verbal confession, the defendant provided on the way
to the station, he did not sell drugs to children or deal with them. So the
first motion of dismissal that the defendant can provide is the improper
lawsuit imposed by the plaintiff, as he is convicted of involving children in
drug trafficking. The prosecution can easily counter this motion by providing
sufficient proof of involvement of children in the trafficking ring. Another
motion of dismissal the defendant can file is the direct violation of the right
to remain silent rule. The officers did not give him his rights before taking
him to the station and at the station, the officers again violated this rule by
pressuring him to testify. Countering this motion can be problematic as it is a
direct violation of the civil rights of the defendant. In order to counter this
motion, the prosecutor must prove that the first confession that the man made
before going to the station was at his own intention and that he was never pressured
to confess.

What are the key issues arising from
the defendant’s admission made while in the police car? Is the case within the
ambit of Miranda, or outside it? Why do you think so? 210

defendant confessed to being a drug trafficker but he denied any acquisition of
involvement of children in the drug ring. There are multiple issues arising
from his confession. These are:

There is no information about the
quantity and type of substance he dealt with.

He completely denies the accusation
of involving children in his trade. This makes the accusation of his
involvement in the trafficking ring involving teenagers invalid.

confession falls outside the ambit of Miranda as no clear warnings of Miranda
were given to the defendant. Miranda rule states that a criminal defendant
cannot be compelled to testify to against himself. But this rule is not
applicable to this confession as the confession was voluntary. So this case is
within the ambit of Miranda.

Should the defendant’s admission to
the police car be admissible? Why or why not? Discuss with reference to United
States v. Patane (2004). 210

admission made by the defendant while on the way to the station can be used as
admissible proof if it fulfils the requirements of the criminal procedure act.
This act states that for any admission to be presentable it must be
tape-recorded or there must be a reasonable excuse for not recording. If the
admission was recorded by the officers, it can be used as a valid confession.
It is also necessary that the admission does not infringe the Miranda rule for
it to be a valid confession. The Miranda rule states that it cannot be violated
by nontestimonial evidence that is obtained as a result of voluntary statements.
But the tenth circuit ruled that taking unwanted statements violates the
defendant’s constitutional rights. Before any proceedings, the defendant must
be made aware of the Miranda warnings. The admission was made by the defendant
at his own will and he was not asked or pressured to confess but he was not
informed of the Miranda warnings. So this prohibits the use of his confession
in the police car as proof.

What are the key issues surrounding
the defendant’s admission while at the police station? Explain in detail with
reference to the Miranda warnings and the fact that during interrogation the
defendant had mentioned, not demanded, a lawyer. 210


Should the admission made at the
station be admissible? Why or why not? 210


What would have been the effect on
this case if the suspect had not asked for his lawyer? Discuss with reference
to Escobedo v. Illinois. 210


What evidence could be added to the
scenario to strengthen a defence attorney’s motion to dismiss the evidence?
What evidence could be added to weaken it? 210


Conclusion 150

Post Author: admin


I'm Irvin!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out