| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Maryland v. Shatzer ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Maryland v. Shatzer
''Maryland v. Shatzer'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel (thereby under ''Edwards v. Arizona'' ending questioning) if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custody. The ruling distinguished ''Edwards'', which had not specified a limit.
==Background==
In ''Miranda v. Arizona'', the Supreme Court held that statements of criminal suspects made while they are in custody and subject to interrogation by any government authority may not be admitted in court unless the suspect first had certain warnings read to him beforehand. In ''Edwards v. Arizona'', the Supreme Court further clarified that once a suspect had invoked their right to have an attorney police questioning must cease. Left unanswered was how long this protection applied—when could police resume questioning?〔''Maryland v. Shatzer'', 559 U.S. ___ (2010) (No. 08-680), p. 4-5. A previous case, ''McNeil v. Wisconsin'', had addressed the break in custody in ''dicta'' but not as part of the decision. ''Maryland v. Shatzer'', 559 U.S. ___ (2010) (No. 08-680), p. 6〕
Michael Shatzer, the respondent in the case, was an inmate in the Maryland penal system, serving time for child sexual abuse. In 2003 police desired to question Shatzer about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Shatzer declined to speak without his attorney present, at which point the interview ended (per ''Edwards''). The police closed the investigation and Shatzer returned to the prison population. Three years later the police opened a new investigation and again asked to question Shatzer. This time Shatzer waived his right to have an attorney present; only after making incriminating statements did Shatzer ask for an attorney. With this evidence in hand, Shatzer was convicted of sexual child abuse by the Washington County, Maryland circuit court. The court denied Shatzer's motion to suppress his confession, reasoning that the three years between the two interviews counted as a break in custody.〔''Maryland v. Shatzer'', 559 U.S. ___ (2010) (No. 08-680), p. 2-3.〕
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed, holding that even if there were a break in custody exception to ''Edwards'', being released back into the prison population would not constitute such.〔''Maryland v. Shatzer'', 559 U.S. ___ (2010) (No. 08-680), p. 3-4.〕 The state of Maryland petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted on January 26, 2009.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Maryland v. Shatzer」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|