A confession from a suspect always makes the work of a detective quite easy. It saves them time which could have been wasted in endless investigations. Cases of individuals confessing under interrogation are very high. However much it is the duty of the detectives and the police to get a confession from a suspect, the suspects too have a right to get a personal lawyer to help them through the interrogation.

The sixth constitutional amendment in particular assures any suspect that he or she has a right to an attorney before being interrogated. The amendment was meant to protect suspects from being put under interrogation without them being well equipped to provide the most appropriate answers. This particular amendment would have barred the detective in the particular situation cited above from interrogating the suspect before providing him with an attorney. The detective disregarded this particular constitutional right which the suspect was entitled to (United States Commission on Civil Rights, 1978).

Edwards rule is directly related to this situation in that the rule outlaws interrogation of a suspect who has asked for an attorney before the attorney has been allocated to him or her. The rule also states that the suspect is entitled to remain silent unless he or she initiates a conversation. This is the same situation that we are observing in the case cited. The detectives went ahead to interrogate the suspect who had asked for an attorney even before he was provided with one (Del, 2014)).

The suspect’s confession to the detective is not admissible simply because his request to have an attorney was disregarded. This particular action of the detective went against the suspect’s constitutional right under the sixth amendment. The attorney would have helped the suspect to understand the implications of any word he would have uttered to the detective. There is also a possibility that the suspect in this case might have been too terrified to the extent that he agreed to something he never committed in the first place. The major reason for inadmissibility of the confession is the fact that the suspect’s constitutional right was not respected (Acker & Brody, 2013).

For justice to be said to be done, all parties involved should always be given enough time and resources to enable them respond correctly. The suspects for instance should not be intimidated into confessions which might not have happened had they been under the guidance of an attorney. The constitutional right of the suspect should have been respected too.




Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :