Review the following cases and write a persuasive research paper that addresses the topic of whether the police and law enforcement should be able to contact criminal defendants who are in custody and who already had counsel appointed to represent them.

In 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Montejo v. Louisiana, which essentially focuses on the ability of the police to go and speak with an in-custody defendant about the facts of his case, after he has been appointed an attorney on the case. The Montejo opinion discusses a defendant’s rights under both the 6th and the 5th amendments to the United States Constitution and how the two act together in protecting a criminal defendant’s rights to counsel and the right to remain silent. The Montejo decision basically allowed the police to go and speak with a criminal defendant even when he had an attorney already appointed to him if the defendant gave a waiver of his right to counsel.

The Montejo court expressly overruled a previous United States Supreme Court decision, namely that of Michigan v. Jackson, which ruled that after a criminal defendant had been appointed an attorney at a court proceeding and was later contacted by the police, any waiver of the right to remain silent would be invalid unless the defendant was the one who initiated the conversation with the police. The Montejo court said that it was incumbent on the defendant to assert his right both to counsel and the right to remain silent and he could do that at any time if contacted by law enforcement.

Please review the following cases and write a persuasive research paper that addresses the topic of whether the police and law enforcement should be able to contact criminal defendants who are in custody and who already had counsel appointed to represent them. You can argue either position (that there should be a bar to police contact if the defendant already has counsel and invokes his right to remain silent OR that the police are allowed to freely contact defendants and that it is incumbent on the defendants to invoke their rights on a case by case basis), but you should support your argument logically and persuasively no matter which position you take.

Feel free to be creative and create a new argument or rule of law, but just remember that the focus of the paper is the 5th and 6th amendments and their protections of the right to remain silent and to counsel.

Also,

Review the following cases and write a persuasive research paper that addresses the topic of whether the police and law enforcement should be able to contact criminal defendants who are in custody and who already had counsel appointed to represent them. You can argue either position (that there should be a bar to police contact if the defendant already has counsel and invokes his right to remain silent OR that the police are allowed to freely contact defendants and that it is incumbent on the defendants to invoke their rights on a case by case basis), but you should support your argument logically and persuasively no matter which position you take.

Also, consider the recent developments that have occurred in Orange County over the last few years, regarding the use of informants in the local jails by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and numerous local police agencies. These agencies have placed numerous “confidential informants” in the jails and worked with them to try to interrogate inmates who already have counsel appointed to them. There are a very large number of articles in local newspapers and also in journals and periodicals all over the country on this topic, so if you conduct a Google search on that topic, you should find plenty of information.

Montejo v. Louisiana (2009) 556 U.S. 778

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436

Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201

Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 177

Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298

Michigan v. Jackson (1986) 475 U.S. 625 (which was later overruled by Montejo v. Louisiana)

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279

Missouri v. Siebert (2004) 542 U.S. 600

Berguis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. 370

Salinas v. Texas (2013) 570 U.S. 178

consider the recent developments that have occurred in Orange County over the last few years, regarding the use of informants in the local jails by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and numerous local police agencies. These agencies have placed numerous “confidential informants” in the jails and worked with them to try to interrogate inmates who already have counsel appointed to them. There are a very large number of articles in local newspapers and also in journals and periodicals all over the country on this topic, so if you conduct a Google search on that topic, you should find plenty of information.