LSTD400

REPLY TO THIS 150 WORDS

The issue behind the confession of Mayo is surrounded by subjectivity in regards to whether or not Mayo was read his rights prior to the confession or not. From the initial information on the case, Mayo was not read his rights. If the officer did not read the Miranda Rights prior to conducting an interrogation, the information may have been received under false pretenses. The officer states that the questioning was done after the Miranda Rights were read. The court must determine whether or not the confession was first a confession of a crime or simply a confession to self-defense and secondly if the confession was obtained in violation of Constitutional Rights. If the officer pressured Mayo into a confession, the confession would be inadmissible in court. 

 The confession from Mayo does not seem to be anything more than a simple outline of the events that transpired and does not self-incriminate. Mayo’s confession seems to have been obtained legally and may be admissible in court. The key point in Mayo’s confession which may outline criminal behavior is his admission to consuming alcohol prior to discharging the weapon. It is almost always illegal to consume alcohol and use a firearm. In many states, it is illegal for firearms to be in the possession of any individual if the establishment serves alcohol. In addition to the laws of alcohol and firearms, the laws for the city of Glenville in regards to discharging of the weapon within city limits remains a point of interest and requires further information.

References

Grewell, J. B. (2005). A walk in the constitutional orchard: Distinguishing fruits of fifth amendment right to counsel from sixth amendment right to counsel in fellers v. united states.Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95(3), 725-762.

Solomon, M. (1998). Fifth amendment at trial. Georgetown Law Journal, 86(5), 1694-1706.