3/19/12, One Week Down

Wow that was so fast!  I can’t believe a week has already gone by, it’s like I just started.  Today was a very boring day for someone who isn’t into the court system, because both attorneys were quite winded.  Lucky for me I am so it was only partially dull.  Christian had a Motions Hearing this morning and I tagged along.  Basically a motions hearing is where the judge decides if the motions made during a case will be accepted or denied.  A motion is a device used to bring a contested issue into court for a judge to decide on.  In this case there were two major motions and maybe six or seven that are not as relevant so I won’t bore you with them.  In the case the Δ was detained and a dispute in the case was that he was interrogated before he was Mirandized (Read his Miranda rights).  Christian got up in front of the judge and gave some evidence to the judge.  An FYI the judge was a visiting (not employed at the court house) judge so no from the DA’s knew him; Christian said he doesn’t care for surprises regarding judges.  The argument brought by the Defense Attorney was that the Δ was interrogated before he was Mirandized, which basically meant that the Δ was asked questions without knowing he had the right to remain silent.  That’s a big problem for the defense.  However the report, written by the officer that responded and also testified, stated that no statements were made during the incident.  The officer did read the Δ Miranda and he was detained legally, however another motion debated that there was an unconstitutional search of the property in question.  There was a search and seizure of t evidence in the home the Δ was taken from, but no warrant was issued.  The law states, well actually the constitution states in the 4^th amendment that there must be a warrant in order to search or seize any property.  This law has some exceptions however.  A law called hot pursuit allows police to pursue a suspect if there is probable cause of a crime committed outside the property in question.  In civilian terms if a suspect is known to have committed a crime, on the street for instance, runs inside his house it is legal to proceed inside the house to detain the suspect.  Another exception is destruction of evidence.  If there is probable cause (51% positive) evidence may be compromised then search and seizure is legal.  So if the policeman knocks on the door of a suspected drug dealer and a few seconds later hears a toilet flush, he has the right to search the property because the suspected drugs may be being destroyed by the loo. 

Since there was no warrant or verbal permission given, the defense motioned for a suppression of evidence (meaning the jury would not be given this evidence) because it was seized unlawfully and unconstitutionally.  Luckily both motions were denied.  If they had been sustained Christian would have had a tough time proving the case because he wouldn’t have had the evidence the policeman collected.  Good work Christian!

Fun Fact:  Did you know that every case that has been questioned or disputed is written down and published in these thick books.  I’d hate to have to read one.  When a disputed case arises that is similar in nature to one in the past it is looked back upon as solid ground as to how to deal with that case.  Each case is so named by the Δ’s last name.  They are written as Name vs. Name.  Your Miranda rights were actually named after a case like this.  In Miranda vs. Arizona a Δ was interrogated without knowing he could consult an attorney first.  This was recorded and later made into a law.  That’s where the name for your “Miranda rights” originated from.  Pretty interesting.