Fare .v. Michael. C Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Fare .v. Michael. C - Case Study ExampleAdditionally, despite the defendant claiming that, police incumbents violated his Mirandas Fifth Amendment right of being silent he is ignorant of the law. Since, regardless of stating the right of silence, which the police violated, he waived the law by admitting interrogations when he had already declined (Scherr & Madon, 2012).The case entails a murder committed by an unknown person but after the arrest of Michael C. by the police and interrogating him while, in custody, they find him quilt. Hence, they agitate a case against him claiming the defendant was involved in the murder of Robert Yeager where he ought to face the law (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966). However, the defendant claims that, what he uttered during the interrogation was referable to the polices compulsion hence, they did violate his Fifth Amendment. Therefore, the information attained in this manner according to him, the hail cannot utilize it in determining his condemn be fore the court of law. Conversely, the court rules he was aware when he chose to continue with the interrogation despite the soldiers informing him about his privileges so his action was due to ignorance (Scherr & Madon, 2012). The court eventually resolves that the defendant gave the required information voluntarily thus Californias court erred in admitting there was an invocation of the right of silence when he asked for a probation officer instead of an attorney (Blackmun, 1979).The court holds that, Californias Supreme Court erred in stating there was an invocation of the defendant rights of inquiring the probation officer to be present during the interrogation incident (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966). This is because the probation officer despite charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the defendant rights, his capacity does not qualify him to replace an attorney in legal matters. Since, the probation is a states employee responsible for ensuring the defendants conduct espe cially in