1 / 32100%
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.+
Maryland v. Shatzer - Balancing the Right to Counsel:
Maryland v. Shatzer is a U.S. Supreme Court case from 2010 that addresses the temporal limits
on reinitiating police interrogation after a suspect has invoked their right to counsel. Answer the
following questions:
1. What constitutional issue did Maryland v. Shatzer address, and how did the case
contribute to the legal standards surrounding the right to counsel, particularly
concerning the temporal limitations on reinitiating police interrogation after a suspect
has invoked this right?
Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) addressed the constitutional issue of how the right to counsel, as
established by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applies when a suspect
invokes the right to remain silent and requests an attorney during custodial interrogation.
In Shatzer, the Supreme Court considered the temporal limitations on reinitiating police
interrogation after a suspect has invoked the right to counsel. The case specifically dealt with the
Edwards v. Arizona (1981) rule, which held that once a suspect requests an attorney, all police-
initiated questioning must cease until an attorney is present unless the suspect himself reinitiates
communication with the police.
The question in Shatzer was whether Edwards' protections remained in effect if the suspect had
been released from custody for an extended period before being subjected to a new round of
police interrogation. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that the Edwards rule is not
violated when a suspect who has invoked the right to counsel is re-approached by the police for
interrogation after a significant break in custody (14 days or more). The Court concluded that a