Research Paper: Part 1 – Cases Summary Instructions
Student Name
Course:
Instructor:
Strayer University
CRJ 310 - Law Enforcement Operations and Management
Research Paper: Part 1 – Cases Summary Instructions
Since 1963, a series of United States Supreme Court case decisions have clarified that
in+criminal+cases, prosecutors must disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the defendant.
This includes information that may be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses,
including+law+enforcement officers. These decisions mean that police officers who have
documented histories of lying in official matters are liabilities to their agencies, and these
histories may render them unable to testify credibly.+
Summarize the main issues that are involved in the following United States Supreme Court
cases. You must have pages, not including your title page.+
Introduction to Illinois v. Perkins:
Illinois v. Perkins is a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1990 that deals with the admissibility of
statements made by an incarcerated individual to an undercover law enforcement officer. Answer
the following questions:
1. What constitutional issue did Illinois v. Perkins address, and how did the case
contribute to the legal standards surrounding the admissibility of statements made
to undercover officers by incarcerated individuals?
Illinois v. Perkins, a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1990, addressed the constitutional issue
of whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when an incarcerated individual
makes incriminating statements to an undercover law enforcement officer who is deliberately
placed in the same cell or otherwise placed in a position to elicit statements.
In this case, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not violated when the
government uses an undercover agent to secretly elicit incriminating statements from a defendant
who is not aware that he is speaking to a law enforcement officer. The Court reasoned that the
defendant, having been read his Miranda rights and not being aware that he was speaking to a
government agent, had not invoked his right to counsel at the time of the conversation.
Therefore, the incriminating statements made to the undercover officer were deemed admissible
in court.
Illinois v. Perkins contributed to the legal standards surrounding the admissibility of statements
made to undercover officers by incarcerated individuals by establishing that the Sixth
