#JAIL CELL TEENAGENT TRIAL#

#JAIL CELL TEENAGENT TRIAL#

Because no Miranda warnings had been given to Perkins prior to his conversation with the undercover officer, the trial court granted Perkins' motion to suppress. Prior to trial, Perkins moved to suppress the statements made to the undercover officer. The following day, Perkins was charged with murder. In reply, Perkins described at length a murder for hire he had committed. When discussing the possibility of a prison break, the undercover officer responded to Perkins' claim that he could smuggle in a gun by asking Perkins whether he had ever 'done' anyone. The defendant in Perkins was imprisoned in a State correctional facility on an assault charge, when a former fellow inmate and an undercover officer were placed in his cellblock in an attempt to gather information about a murder Perkins was believed to have committed. Perkins, (10) the Supreme Court recognized that there are limitations to the rule announced in Miranda. The Miranda rule requires that these warnings be given, and the rights they embody be waived, prior to the initiation of custodial interrogation. This compulsion, which is a byproduct of most custodial interrogation, directly conflicts with every individual's fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.Īccordingly, the Court developed the now-familiar Miranda warnings as a means of reducing the compulsion attendant in custodial interrogation. (9) In other words, the Court in Miranda believed that an individual in custody undergoing police interrogation would feel compelled to respond to police questioning. Arizona (8) held that custodial interrogation of an individual creates a psychologically compelling atmosphere that works against this fifth amendment protection.

Constitution provides in part that 'no person.shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' (7) Over two decades ago, the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Fifth Amendment - Self-Incrimination Clause It then provides a guide to the constitutional use of cellmate informants. This article reviews the decisions in Perkins and examines subsequent cases dealing with the question left unresolved by the Supreme Court. (5) Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case a second time, (6) the extent to which cellmate informants can be used lawfully against suspects who have earlier invoked a right to counsel remains open to debate in both lower Federal courts and State courts. However, the permissible use of cellmate informants was again questioned when Perkins subsequently argued successfully in State court that the use of the technique violated his previously invoked Miranda right to counsel. (4) This decision appeared to clear the way for law enforcement to take advantage of this very effective investigative technique. Specifically, the Court held that the use of cellmate informants does not violate the Miranda rule. Supreme Court, while not resolving the debate, answered an important question regarding the constitutionality of using cellmate informants. While some scholars find the practice a 'mere strategic deception advantage of a suspect's misplaced trust in one he supposes to be a fellow prisoner,' (1) others view the use of cellmate informants as being 'so offensive to a civilized system of justice that must be condemned.' (2) Despite this debate, law enforcement officers agree that the use of cellmate informants is an investigative technique that works very well in many cases. Over the years, legal scholars have debated the legality and propriety of using cellmate informants. A Constitutional Guide to Using Cellmate Informants

Jail cell teenagent