Imagine that you are a police detective working the case of the kidnapping of a six-year-old boy. You have a suspect in the interrogation room at the police station and read him his Miranda rights. He has agreed to answer your questions, waived his right to a lawyer, and is denying any knowledge of the kidnapping, which you know to be a lie. The kidnapping has received massive nation-wide media attention. Locating the child and returning him to his parents safely is your highest priority.
A. You arrange to have the heat turned up in the interrogation room a few degrees to make the suspect uncomfortable and to let him sweat a little. You also arrange for him to get a room temp glass of water and a cold sandwich. If, under these conditions, the suspect made an incriminating statement, would the trial judge allow the jury to hear what he said? Why or why not?
B. You know that the suspect’s accomplice was found after killing herself, but you lie to the suspect and tell him that his accomplice confessed to the kidnapping and said she knew where the boy was before the police killed her in a gun battle. If the suspect responded to your lie by making an incriminating statement, would a trial judge allow the jury to hear what he said? Why or why not?
C. Besides turning up the heat and lying to the suspect about his accomplice confessing, you also truthfully tell him that the boy has diabetes and, if he does not get his next insulin shot, he will likely die, adding the charge of murder to the kidnapping charges against the suspect. If this information gets the suspect to make an incriminating statement, would a trial judge allow the jury to hear it? Why or why not?
Book: criminal evidence 8th edition by norman garland
