Neeraj Gaur
Mock Trial
People v. Vega * Prosecution
OPENING
Your Honor, may I begin? We can all argue that Miranda warnings are not necessary if the suspect is not in custody. The prosecution will argue that Adrian Vega was not in custody when speaking to Officer Wright. Adrian’s freedom was not restricted in any way because Adrian voluntarily sat inside the police cruiser to get out of the cold air. Both Officer Wright and Adrian sat inside the police cruiser only because of the cold weather. Adrian never asked to leave, never asked if the doors were locked, and was never told to stay by Officer Wright. Furthermore since Officer Wright did not need to Mirandize Adrian, her bracketed statement should be admissible in court. CASES * Berkemer v. McCarty * In this case, the officer did not need to Mirandize the defendant because he was not in custody; Miranda warnings are only given when a person is in custody and their freedom is significantly restrained. The court decided that the Officers do not need to Mirandize at traffic stops or evening when roadside questioning is taken into effect, considering it was not “custodial interrogation”. Adrian was not in custody when Officer Wright was talking to her. She voluntarily sat inside the police cruiser because it was too cold outside; her freedom was not retrained from her. * Oregon v. Mathison * This case also talks about how the defendant voluntarily comes into the police station and speaks about the burglary crime and confesses to it before being Mirandized. To admit his confession as evidence it does not violate his fifth or sixth Amendment rights because he was not in custody, was not under arrest and was not restricted from his freedom. The Court also stated that even if the officers pressured the defendant into coming to the police station for an interview, the defendant came there on his own free will and was free to leave at any time. Adrian was in the same situation; her conversation with Officer Wright was all voluntary. This case is a great example because even though Adrian was not Mirandized, her bracketed statement should be admissible in court as evidence since it is not a violation of her fifth or sixth amendment, she was not in custody and her freedom was not restricted. * Rhode Island v. Innis * This case works for the prosecution because it shows that even though the defendant was Mirandized and invoked his right to speak with a lawyer, the conversation the officers and the defendant had, which consisted of a few off hand remarks. The officers did not know that the defendant response could be incriminating. The conversation was not considered interrogation and therefore did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment. Officer Wright did not know that Adrians bracketed statement would be incriminating. Therefore the conversation Officer Wright and Adrian had did not constitute an interrogation under Miranda. * Green v. Superior Court * This case proves that even though the interrogation room door was locked the defendant freedom was not retrained from him because he did not know the door was locked. Adrian sat behind the police cruiser and did not know the door was locked either. The court concluded that the defendants freedom was not restricted.