The notable actions of the case in the Norfolk case is that they arrived very fast after receiving a call from William a neighbour to the deceased ``woman”. In most instances, Police take unnecessary long time before responding to a crime scene call. However, their response in this case is commendable.
Secondly, the police tried performed an examination of the body to establish the cause o f death. Police should examine a dead body in order to categorize the type of crimes suffered and the cause of the death .In this case, the police found out that the Michelle Moore had been strangled in addition to being raped prior to her death.
After categorizing the crime, the police swung into action. They tried to obtain leads regarding the perpetrator of the murder and rape of Michelle Moore. The police questioned a woman who had known the deceased for a month and she stated that William, the neighbour to Michelle Moore was interested in the deceased romantically despite being married.However, I noted some issues during the interrogation as conducted by the police. The police instilled fear to the suspects. The investigator Glen Ford repeatedly informed the suspects that they would be sentenced for murder and would spend their entire lives in jail thus facilitating the formulation of a promise that would entice the suspects to confess so as to be saved from life sentence. The investigator for instance told Derek, one of the suspects that he was convinced that he and his friends committed the murder but he would help him if he produced other accomplishes.
Secondly, the manner in which the investigators conducted the interrogations was not appealing. The investigators were shouting to the suspects while interrogating them. The shouting was aimed at impacting negatively on the psychology of the suspects by instilling fear that would make them confess to a crime that they had no idea about how it was committed.
Further, the manner in which the police indentified William as the first suspect is questionable. The fact that a lady told the police that William had an interest in Michelle Moore does not amount to the fact that he had motive to kill her. Additionally, the police did not question any other neighbour in the apartment to supplement the allegation of the woman who stated that William was the main suspect.
Finally, the investigators according to me did t not understand the objective of the crime they were investigating. For instance, William who was the prime suspect claimed that he had stabbed to death after raping her. However, an autopsy revealed that she died as a result of being strangled. The fact, that the police did not note that the statement tendered by
William was inconsistent to the autopsy raises a lot of issues in regard to their motive behind coercing William to confess to the ``murder” crime.
However, it is important to note that the police in obtaining the confessions of the suspects in this case committed a lot of illegality. First, the room unto which the confessions were being conducted was not friendly. The room was small and not well lit. The room itself might have instilled fear on the perpetrators as to the impending predicament if they did not confess to the crime. The room should have been organized to create a conducive environment that was relaxing to the suspects while making their confessions.
Secondly, the investigators did not inform the suspects about their right to have a ``counsel” present while making their confessions. Miranda rights rule provides that it is the duty of the investigators and the police to make it known to the suspects the crime they are facing and the importance of having a counsel to assist them in their case.
Thirdly, the investigator did not inform the suspects of the consequences of their confessions. The investigators should have informed the suspects prior to making their confessions that the confessions would serve as evidence against them in court as per subsection 3501 of the US Code. .Failure to inform the suspects of this fundamental aspect is an indication that the investigator was concerned about fame for prosecuting the case abut not bringing the actual ``murderer” to justice.
Further, the investigator constantly told the suspects that he was sure that they had committed the crime. The presumption that the suspects were murderers is contravention of the provision of ``right to the dual process” as provided for by “fourteenth amendment”. We find that the investigator sole aim at the beginning of his interrogation was to make the suspects confess to the crime. Whenever the suspects denied committing the crime, he would shout and threaten them thus interfering with the ``presumed right to innocence”.
Additionally, the investigator committed an illegality by coercing the suspects to make false confessions. It is evident that the investigator himself noted that the confessions were not true after the autopsy results were released. William in his statement had indicated that he had stabbed the woman to death. However, an autopsy revealed that she had been strangled to death. It is at this point that the investigator questioned William in order to fill gaps in his statement so as to make his confession convincing and paint him as the actual murderer.
Various constitutional amendments that provide for the procedures in making confessions as well as protecting the rights of a suspect were violated by the police in this case. The Fifth Amendment that provides for Miranda rights was abhorrently violated. The police did not inform the suspects about their right to have a counsel while making their confessions .The police told William that he could make his confession and he can call his counsel later. The acts by the police were misleading and in contravention of the Fifth Amendment and it s goal of protecting accused persons to facilitate dispensation of justice. In Mallow v Hoggan the Supreme Court held that a confession obtained by police without informing an accused hi right to representation was a contradiction of ``Miranda rights rule” as per the Fifth Amendment.
The sixth Amendment was also violated by the police. The conduct by the police to obtain incriminating evidence from the suspects and by concealing truth full evidence to facilitate the making of false confessions is contrary to the provisions of this amendment. The Sixth Amendment seeks to provide restrictions on conduct of police officers while conducting interrogations and recording confessions.
Finally the fourth Amendment thus provide for ``due process” was violated by the police. Due process is mainly interpreted to imply that accused persons should not be subjected to involuntary confessions. In this case, the suspects were interrogated for long periods of time and were pressurized by the police to incriminate their friends so as to receive a lesser sentence. We find that even after the police realizing that the suspects had nothing to do with the alleged crime, they still worked towards making them confess to the crime .The suspects made the confessions due to desperation and threats instilled by the police. In lynumm v Illinois the supreme court held that an accused person who had admitted to a murder charge after long hours of interrogation by the police to induce him to make a confession amounted to infringmnt of thr fourth Amendment .
Reference
Confessions. Retrieved from http://video.pbs.org/video/1637166286/ Assessed on 8th December, 2014.
