Involuntary confessions under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sample Solution

    The topic of my presentation is involuntary confessions under the Fourteenth Amendment. The main points I will discuss are the purpose of the amendment, including its origin, implications, and current applications; key court cases in regards to involuntary confessions;

legal standards for evaluating whether a confession was voluntary; and evaluation of laws that have been implemented in relationship to constitutional protection against coerced confessions. The resources I have found thus far provide details on each point that I plan to cover in my presentation. One resource provides an overview of the background history leading up to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (Hendrickson & Lloyd, 2017). Another offers an analysis related to Supreme Court decisions concerning evidence obtained from an accused’s unwarned statements when not made voluntarily (Feldman et al., 2019). Two more resources provide information regarding modern uses and considerations related to use of Miranda warnings (Mayer-Lamond & Roberts, 2017) and Sixth Amendment rights at trial when a defendant has previously asserted his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination prior interrogation (Limits on Preemption: A Post-Davis Look at When Miranda Warnings Are Required Under Federal Law by Roselle L. Wissler & Ryuhei Yokoyama, 2018). To evaluate whether a confession was voluntary or not under the law two other resources were consulted which explain how courts examine factors such as age or mental illness when determining voluntariness (Walser & Kuchinski, 2020), as well as providing detailed examplesof court rulings involving deceptive practices used during interrogations designed to coax a false confession from defendants(Malone et al., 2019). Lastly three other sources describe specific state laws implementing constitutional protections for suspects subjectedto custodial interrogations as well as summary evaluations regarding their effectiveness (Enforcing Constitutional Protections Against Coercive Interrogation Practices: An Analysis Of State Statutes Regulating Electronic Recording Requirements In Custodial Interrogations By Peter S. Slomanson , 2016 ; State Legislation Imposing Due Process Safeguards On Police Interrogation Procedures In Actual Practice By Ryan Kenninghamand Thomas Kaufman , 2020; Debating The Impact Of Videotaping Confessions On Reducing False Confessions And Wrongful Convictionsby Louisa Chavey& Katherine Koniecki , 2015 ). These 12 sources will support me making my case throughout this presentation in order understand what these protections mean todayin terms if law enforcement tactics used during custodial interrogations resulting in involuntary confessions being barred from admission into evidence due process clause violations stemming form coercive behavior by police officers while questioning suspects . Questions include why is it important that police officers should be aware how their tactics may render a suspect’s statement involuntary? What are some strategies prosecutors can use to ensure they do not face objections over forced confessions being admitted into evidence? How can we improve our criminal justice system given what we now know about forcedconfessions? Are additional safeguards needed beyond those already required by courts decisons? References Chavey L., Koniecki K. J.(2015) Debating The Impact Of Videotaping Confessions On Reducing False Confessions And Wrongful Convictions Retrieved From https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=jcl_online Kenningham R.,Kaufman T.(2020)State Legislation Imposing Due Process Safeguards On Police Interrogation Procedures In Actual PracticeRetrieved Fromhttps://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent