Introduction In this paper, I will discuss the key facts, issues, and court holdings of the Fare v. Michael C. case. Discussion The Fare v. Michael C. case was heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1979, following an appeal referencing the Miranda Warnings issued to the juvenile defendant (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). At the time of the arrest in February 1976 in Van Nuys, California, the suspect, Michael C., was just over sixteen years old (FindLaw, n.d.) The suspect had a previous record displaying several offenses, had served a period of time within a juvenile correctional facility, and was currently on probation. The arrest resulted from the murder of Robert Yeager in his home during a robbery in January 1976. A vehicle registered to the mother of Michael C. was observed near the residence of Robert Yeager, moreover, the description of the suspect observed near the truck as well as the residence matched Michael C. The interview of Michael C.
…show more content…
opened with the officer advising him of the Miranda Rights in great detail (FindLaw, n.d.). Michael C. requested to have his probation officer present during the interview when the officer advised him of his right to have an attorney present. The request was denied by the officer, who then again advised Michael C. of his right to have an attorney present during the questioning. The offer to have an attorney present was ultimately refused by Michael C., as he agreed to answer questions without an attorney present. The officer began questioning Michael C. about the murder, a statement as well as sketched were obtained from the interview which incriminates the suspect of the crimes (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Following formal charging of Michael C., he filed a motion to have the statements and sketched obtained during the interview suppressed (FindLaw, n.d.). The defense argued the evidence was collected illegally following the request for the probation officer by Michael C. violating the Miranda Rights. The defense argued the request was an assertion of the right to remain silent. The defense called the probation officer, Charles P. Christiansen, of Michael C. to assist with presenting their argument. Mr. Christiansen stated, he had advised the defendant to contact him when he was having issues with his family or if he had additional contact with law enforcement. The California Supreme Court agreed with the defense ruling the statements and sketches be excluded as evidence against Michael C. (FindLaw, n.d.). The California Supreme Court ruled, the request for the probation officer was the same as the request for an attorney at which point Michael C. has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The California Supreme Court ruled the presence of the probation officer would provide the same safeguards as an attorney in the protections the juvenile. The United States Supreme Court did not agree with the defense’s argument and found the California Supreme Court erred in its ruling, …show more content…
The United States Supreme Court further ruled, following the request for the probation officer Michael C. continued to talk freely with the interviewing officer. The court advised the decision made by Michael C. was from an informed point of view as he had many previous experiences with the criminal justice system. Additionally, the United States Supreme court stated, the probation officer is an employee of the government meaning their interests were primarily in the prosecution of
opened with the officer advising him of the Miranda Rights in great detail (FindLaw, n.d.). Michael C. requested to have his probation officer present during the interview when the officer advised him of his right to have an attorney present. The request was denied by the officer, who then again advised Michael C. of his right to have an attorney present during the questioning. The offer to have an attorney present was ultimately refused by Michael C., as he agreed to answer questions without an attorney present. The officer began questioning Michael C. about the murder, a statement as well as sketched were obtained from the interview which incriminates the suspect of the crimes (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Following formal charging of Michael C., he filed a motion to have the statements and sketched obtained during the interview suppressed (FindLaw, n.d.). The defense argued the evidence was collected illegally following the request for the probation officer by Michael C. violating the Miranda Rights. The defense argued the request was an assertion of the right to remain silent. The defense called the probation officer, Charles P. Christiansen, of Michael C. to assist with presenting their argument. Mr. Christiansen stated, he had advised the defendant to contact him when he was having issues with his family or if he had additional contact with law enforcement. The California Supreme Court agreed with the defense ruling the statements and sketches be excluded as evidence against Michael C. (FindLaw, n.d.). The California Supreme Court ruled, the request for the probation officer was the same as the request for an attorney at which point Michael C. has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The California Supreme Court ruled the presence of the probation officer would provide the same safeguards as an attorney in the protections the juvenile. The United States Supreme Court did not agree with the defense’s argument and found the California Supreme Court erred in its ruling, …show more content…
The United States Supreme Court further ruled, following the request for the probation officer Michael C. continued to talk freely with the interviewing officer. The court advised the decision made by Michael C. was from an informed point of view as he had many previous experiences with the criminal justice system. Additionally, the United States Supreme court stated, the probation officer is an employee of the government meaning their interests were primarily in the prosecution of