Miranda v. Arizona in Utah State Courts Statement

In this case, law enforcement questioned the defendant about his involvement in the armed robbery of a store. During this questioning, law enforcement asked whether the defendant wished to speak with an attorney. The defendant responded ôUm, sure. That would be groovy.ö Law enforcement, however, did not make an attorney available to the defendant. Rather, they continued to question him and the defendant subsequently made incriminating statements on which law enforcement relied to convict him of armed robbery.

Whether the trial court erred when it allowed into evidence incriminating statements made by defendant after he indicated to law enforcement that he wished to speak with an attorney during their interrogation.

Law enforcement violated the defendantÆs constitutional protections by continuing to question the defendant after he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel.

Law enforcement violated the defendantÆs constitutional protections by continuing to question the defendant after he equivocally invoked his right to counsel.

The defendant did not waive his constitutional protections.

The facts in this case do not establish that the defendant was ever informed of his rights under Miranda before his interrogation began. If this questioning began without the defendant first being informed of his rights under Miran

. . .
he defendant did not unequivocally invoke his constitutional protections. However, they cannot argue that the defendantÆs statement, taken in the context of a response to a question asking whether he wanted to speak with an attorney, did not at least indicate an ambiguous or equivocal reference to a desire to speak to an attorney. His statement, therefore, should have alerted law enforcement that they needed to clarify whether the defendant was seeking the procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda before continuing with the interrogation. Case law decided by both the United States Supreme Court and the Utah Supreme Court clearly holds that law enforcement must clarify any ambiguous or equivocal statements a defendant makes in reference to his rights under Miranda. However, the facts do not support any interpretation that law enforcement attempted to clarify the meaning of the defendantÆs statement. Accordingly, any statements made by the defendant after he indicated his desire to speak with an attorney should not have been admitted into evidence in court. The Utah Supreme Court has held that when a defendant utters a statement that arguably invokes his Miranda rights, law enforcement must stop all questioning about the defen
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Utah App, Fifth Amendment, Argument III, Highway Patrol, Courts Statement, Court Davis, Moreover Dictionary, LeyvaÆs Miranda, Brewer Williams, law enforcement, miranda rights, supreme court, ed 2d, constitutional protections, speak attorney, utah supreme court, utah app, court held, rights miranda, utah supreme, united supreme court, wished speak attorney, 951 p2d 738, leyva 951 p2d,
Approximate Word count = 2642
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)