The citation of Nix v. Williams case is 467 U.S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984)
Facts
Williams was taken into custody for the murder to a young girl aged close to ten years whose body he disposed of down a irritate road. Worth noting is the fact that law enforcement officials had engaged in a search for the girls remains. As the search was going on, Williams took statements with the police in the absence of an attorney (Del & Jeffery 29). This led the officer to the place where he dumped the body. William’s Miranda rights were mentioned to him upon arrest.
Procedural history
The defendant in this case; William was arraigned in the Supreme Court whereby his rights for killing a child were read. This occurred after he made statements to law enforcement officers that led the officers to the body of the slain child. Notably, his statements were not utilized as evidence against him in the court. Instead information on chemical tests, photographic information, and the child’s body were admitted. During trial, the court admitted that even in case Williams had not given statements that led to the retrieval of the child’s body, the body would have been found in the long run. As such, his statements qualified to be used against him (Del & Jeffery 48).
Legal issue
The legal issue that emerged in this case aligns with the question on the use of evidence that resulted in Williams’s arrest. Precisely, the use of this evidence is questionable because they were obtained improperly from the defendant.
Decision
After the trial William was finally convicted for murder. The decision was based a stringent process, which involved from different Justices. Precisely, eleven justices presided over the case and majorities were of the opinion that inevitable discovery exception was eminent (Del & Jeffery 14). As such, the law enformenet officers were not held liable for violating the defendant’s rights as it was hypothesized.
Legal analysis
As postulated by the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence deemed to have been obtained inappropriately, but would have been discovered within a relatively short time may be used as evidence against a defendant. This is because; the fact that the evidence was obtained using an inappropriate method remains irrelevant. On another note, a dissent would have been a viable option in this case because the probability that the body would have been found within a short time is hypothetical. This means it may or may have not been found. As such, the evidence may have been dismissed because it was obtained in an unconstitutional manner.
Work Cited
Del, Carmen R. V, and Jeffery T. Walker. Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement: -. Burlington: Elsevier Science, 2011. Internet resource.
