oral argument 3 Flashcards
the third factor
the extent to which the suspect is presented evidence to his or her guilt” is also in favor that hardy in custody.
The record shows that hardy was specifically asked questions
about his knowledge of what was going on in the office and whether he was involved
hardy was told about the crime being done, was told he was seen at the office multiple times and was presented evidence of the fraudulent documents
These facts are similar to jg v state in which the third factor weighed in favor of the suspect was in custody
In jg v state the appellant was asked specific questions of his involvement in which he denied appellant was then showed a video of acts which later lead to him confessing
State v Pitts states that
when police confront the defendant with evidence that strongly suggests his guilt, the psychological impact will diminish if the police do nothing to refute the defendants explanation
The record shows hardy explained he had no knowledge of any wrong doing. Officer crane
contradicted his explanation by implying hardy was involved when he said “sure seems like you and Marie spent a lot of time together”
therefore
the physiological impact was still present,
although the evidence does not explicitly link hardy to the crime,The presentation of the documents and the statement that Hardy was seen entering multiple times shows Officer Crane’s intent to make hardy feel as if he was guilty
which would result in a reasonable person believing they are not free to leave
the fourth factor
hardy was never told he was free to leave, favors that hard was in custody
Thompson v keohane states
the Miranda test for custody does not ask whether the suspect was told that he was free to leave; the test asks whether ‘a reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.’
Record shows as stated above
that hardy was question in small room in the police station with a locked door and visible law enforcement. Hardy was never told he was free to leave.
The physical setting of a confined and controlled environment with visible law enforcement
would make a reasonable person feel a restriction in there movement
and the omission of being told to leave is significant because a reasonable person relies on clear and explicit communication from authorities regarding there rights and freedom
with out it a reasonable person may not feel confident asserting there ability to leave
