Read the scenario provided below. After reading the scenario, you will prepare a response through the views of three critical lenses. The first critical lens will be from the perspective of a law enforcement personnel. The second critical lens will be from the view of a member of a neighborhood association. The third critical lens will be from the view of a close relative to the suspect. From each critical lens, you are to answer the following questions and provide justification for your answers:
1.Can any aspect of the scenario be classified as hearsay?
2.Do any hearsay exemptions or exceptions apply?
3.Did the suspect provide a confession?
4.Was the confession given freely and voluntarily?
5.Was the Miranda rule correctly applied?
6.Are there any exceptions to the Miranda warning requirement that applies?
7.Would the confession be admissible at trial?
You will also need to provide a summarization paragraph in which you will discuss which lens was the most difficult to answer the questions from and why.
Each section of your case study must be clearly labeled using the following section headings:
Lens 1: Law Enforcement
Lens 2: Neighborhood Association
Lens 3:Suspect’s Relative
Each section should be a minimum of 100 words. Your entire case study should be at least three pages.
Be sure to cite, in APA format, any source used to influence your response.
Scenario: The following information was relayed during an evening news broadcast. Law enforcement officers arrived to the scene of an alleged robbery during a community festival. The festival was held in the historic district of the community and was hosted by the historic district’s neighborhood association. The festival incorporated numerous activities that fully engaged participants in arts and crafts, use of technology, sampling of various food items, and the handling of various wares. The festival provided a variety of activities, so it attracted attendees from throughout the world. Thus, the festival was usually full of nonstop activity from the time it began in the morning until it ended in the evening.
When the policemen arrived on scene, the festival appeared to have stopped. People were standing around in small clusters and watching a group of suspects that had been forced to sit down in the middle of a stage that was previously used for performing music groups. The festival security informed law enforcement that security had apprehended the suspects after several vendors reported that the suspects had taken their wares from the display tables without purchasing them. The vendors reported that when they confronted the suspects, the individuals fled the scene with the wares. The festival security also informed the policemen that when they apprehended the suspects, they had none of the reportedly missing wares in their possession.
While the festival security personnel were briefing law enforcement on the situation, several of the suspects’ relatives entered the scene and asked why the suspects were detained. A police officer overheard one suspect who told a relative that the detention was a result of taking wares from the vendors without payment. The policeman also overheard the suspect telling the relative to pay the vendors for the missing wares in hopes that no charges would be filed.
Based on the information that the law enforcement officer overheard, the suspects were taken into custody.During the transport to the local jail, several of the suspects engaged in casual conversation with the police officers and provided some details as to their whereabouts before, during, and after their apprehension. The law enforcement officers then booked the suspects, took them into an interrogation room, and read them the Miranda rights. All of the suspects requested legal counsel and refused to answer any of the investigators’questions.