Using the sample brief and your brief instructions as a guide, prepare a case brief in the following case:
– Michigan v. Sitz (1990)
-You can use this link to find the case: https://caselaw.findlaw.com
Case Brief Example
Professor:
CRM 322
Law of Criminal Procedure
Case Brief
02/23/2017
Berkemer, Sheriff of Franklyn County v. McCarty
468 U.S. 420 (1984)
Parties:
Berkemer, Sheriff Franklyn County (Plaintiff) v. Richard McCarty (Defendant)
Facts:
The subject of this case was convicted for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. This case brought two questions to the court, the first being the admissibility of statements made once in custodial care at the jail. T he second was the roadside statements that the defendant made during the investigatory process. Was there a violation in the defendants Fifth Amendment, witness against himself?
Prior Proceedings:
Richard McCarty had been lawfully pulled over by a Trooper of the State of Ohio while in the process of performing his lawful duties. During the course of the roadside investigation, McCarty was asked to perform a roadside sobriety test and when asked if “he had been using intoxicants?” McCarty answered, “he consumed two beers and had smoked several joints of marijuana a short time before”. Based on the Trooper observations prior to and during the stop, along with the subject’s answers to questions, McCarty was placed under arrest. A motion was presented Court for the Southern District of Ohio, his petition for habeas corpus was denied. The Court of Appeals, 716 F.2d 361, reversed and Certiorari was granted.
Issues Presented or Questions of Law:
The issue presented was the defendants fifth amendment rights vio lated and due ti the fact that the defendant was roadside he was not provided his Miranda Warning.
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties:
The defendant argued that at no time was he advised of his Miranda Rights, this prior to being placed under lawful arrest nor was he advised of Miranda after being arrested and transported to the jail.
Holding/Rule of Law:
In the opinion of the court, it was decided that all statements made prior to custodial arrest was admissible and Miranda does not apply. Any st atements made at the jail were in admissible as once he was placed into the police car he was “in custody” and Miranda would apply.
Saint Leo Core Values Displayed:
Saint Leo Core Value of Integrity displays in this case as the trooper it was his intention to do what was right and safe at the time.
Rationale:
The courts rationale as long as there is no “custodial detention” then Miranda does not apply. This extends to the roadside and during a lawful investigatory stop.
Conclusion:
This case was affirmed, and conviction held.
References:
Schubert/Samaha. (2015). Intro to Law and the Legal System. In Schubert/Samaha, Intro to
Law and the Legal System (p. 640). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Westlaw, Thomson Reuters. (2018, 01 21). Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-
com.saintleo.idm.oclc.org.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
