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

Fare .v. Michael. C - Case Study Example Additionally, despite the defendant claiming that, police officers violated his Miranda’s 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 file 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 due to the police’s compulsion; hence, they did violate his Fifth Amendment. Therefore, the information attained in this manner according to him, the court cannot utilize it in determining his fate before 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; California’s court erred in admitting there wa s an invocation of the right of silence when he asked for a probation officer instead of an attorney (Blackmun, 1979). The court holds that, California’s 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 state’s employee responsible for ensuring the defendant’s conduct especially in