Lennie and George are good friends and work at the same place. One day Lennie beats his boss to death with a hammer and is arrested. The Police read Lennie his Miranda Rights and Lennie invokes his right to an attorney. The Police immediately stopped asking Lennie questions. Later that day George arrives at the Police Department and asks to speak to Lennie. The Police tell George they will allow it if an Officer can stay in the room and record their conversation. George agrees and gets to talk to Lennie. During their conversation Lennie tells George about how he killed Curley (their boss). Lennie had not seen a lawyer at the time of his conversation with George and George is not an attorney.
At the trial the Police try to enter the recording into evidence but the defense objects. Was Lennie's 5th Amendment (Miranda Rights) violated? Why?
2007-10-01 21:02:29 · 15 answers · asked by El Scott 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Here is a typical Miranda Warning:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
2007-10-01 21:10:32 · update #1
Jimmy J: George was the smart one. Lennie was the slower one. Kudos to you though.
2007-10-01 22:27:51 · update #2
Miranda only applies if there is BOTH custody and interrogation.
If the police are not asking Lennie guilt seeking questions, and Lennie voluntarily agreed to talk to George with an officer in the room recording the conversation, then there is no violation of the Miranda requirements. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy to the conversation. I would guess that the tape would be admissible.
2007-10-01 21:10:32 · answer #1 · answered by Citicop 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
You are leaving out an important detail. You state the police will only allow George to talk to Lennie, "if an officer can stay in the room and record their conversation." Now to me, that implies that Lennie knows the officer is in the room and recording the conversation. Therefore no violation takes place. Even if no recording took place, the conversation overheard by the officer would be admissible.
If, for some reason, Lennie does not know the officer is in the room (hiding in a dark corner?), Miranda might apply. However, nothing prevents the prosecution from making George testify about what Lennie said. No lawyer/client privilege exists for their conversation.
2007-10-02 00:50:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, HOWEVER there is a very slight chance that the Judge will not allow the tape as evidence if it can be proven that George entered the room with intent to implicate his friend for reason that Lenny spoke to George with a confidence that George was his friend. The fact that they both worked at the same place and depending on George's relationship to the boss could provide to a conflict of interest.
Though this action by the police is questionable, they did not violate Lennie's rights. When Lenny gave George the details, he freely surrendered the information. The police did nothing to coerce Lenny to admit his guilt, and for this reason, the taped confession would be allowable as evidence. Because a conversation between two friends is not Privelaged Information, it can be argued that Lenny waived his, "Right to remain silent," the second he began to admit his guilt to his friend.
2007-10-02 00:57:32 · answer #3 · answered by Voice of Liberty 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the two spoke in the police department or county jail they have no expectation of privacy. Also, most police departments/ county jails have signs posted that state AUDIO & VIDEO RECORDING IN PROGRESS. Lennie is not being questioned by the police, and as long as Gorge is not acting as an agent of or for the police than the recording can be used. If this could not be used then we should et rid of phone calls and visits before an attorney csan meet with the client. Although, how many people would wave the attorney to see a friendly face?
2007-10-02 03:20:40 · answer #4 · answered by wfsgymwear 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, if you read Miranda carefully, you will see that it is the police that can't ask him questions until he talks with a lawyer. Lennie gave this information up on his own without force or duress to his friend George. Law Enforcement can record any conversation at any time without someones consent. A good attorney will object to this evidence, but a good prosecutor will get the judge to keep the evidence. Lennie shouldn't be going around killing people with a hammer either!!!
2007-10-01 21:11:23 · answer #5 · answered by LAWDOGG 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
An officer was in the room and the conversation was recorded. As a rule all conversations between prisoner and whoever are recorded with certain specific exceptions. I.E. lawyer, clergy, etc. Lennie needs to keep his big mouth shut to anybody but his lawyer. Period.
2007-10-03 17:13:21 · answer #6 · answered by jjbetz@swbell.net 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lenny is in custody, and did ask for a lawyer. The police essentially asked George to do their job.
By taking the taping device under those circumstances, George is now acting as an agent of the police. As soon as the police asked George to wear the recorder, it became a Miranda issue. The recorded confession will not be admitted.
If George taped it on his own, without the police requesting him, One Party Consent laws apply, and the tape would be admissible.
2007-10-01 21:25:55 · answer #7 · answered by trooper3316 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
yes his 5th amendment was violated because once he lawyered up, the police cannot do anything to him without the presence of his lawyer. unless, he waived his rights. but, a police officer to be present may or may not be accepted during George and Lennie's meeting, but to record their conversation is out of the question with out the presence of a lawyer. his conversation was illegally obtained, and it's inadmissable in court due to the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine".
2007-10-06 16:04:39 · answer #8 · answered by robflo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the right to remain silent means you must remain silent. After you have invoked your right, if you open up conversation, answer a question, make small talk, or comment about the weather you have effectively negated your right to remain silent and officers can resume questioning you without a lawyer present. Police can and will use anything you say against you especially if you choose to talk. Even if your just mumbling to yourself. Only conversations between you and your attorney are protected.
2007-10-02 03:21:16 · answer #9 · answered by river_plate_94 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Is Lennie the character from the novel "Of Mice and Men?" Seems like if he observed someone in the room who he did not know, he'd be smart enough not to talk about killing someone. Anyway, if this occurred in the visitor area, the courts have already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in that situation since it is a public area.
2007-10-01 21:12:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋