Case Study

|

Case Study #1 |

United States vs Charles McFarland |

|

Dave Crisp |

5/1/2014 |

|

7-4 Exclusionary Rule

In this particular case Charles McFarland was an inmate at a prison facility that was going to be interviewed and questioned about a separate matter than that of his initial incarceration. The incident in questioned involved a handgun that had been used in a shooting involving two police officers. When questioned about the incident the officers that were questioning him were using deceptive practices. They did not properly inform him of his Miranda rights and they told him that no charges will be filed. In this particular case I have chosen Charles McFarland as the client. I believe that the tactics used by the police officers were immoral and inconsistent with the high standards of honesty and integrity that police are supposed to be subject to. The biggest thing that I believe was done wrong in this case would be that they did not properly inform Mr. McFarland of his Miranda rights in this situation. The officers should have been more professional in this matter as this will probably have a profound impact on this particular case if it goes to a court trial. The other thing is that the officers should not let the details of the case affect them in a way that they compromise their morality for a specific result in their interrogation. By doing this the motion that Mr. McFarland will file to suppress the statements that he made during this interview will have a good chance of being thrown out. It is rather surprising that the officers doing this interview did not realize or think about what they were doing. The case study does not say if the officers knew the other officers that were the victims in the case but this could be a reason they were not thinking straight and if that is the case because of conflict of interest they should not have been allowed to jeopardize the case by involving their personal feelings in a professional interview...