College Essay Examples

Case Study 3: Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer

Case Study 3: Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer

The Fifth Amendment is the constitutional amendment that would relate to this situation. This is because the Fifth Amendment guarantees that people who have been arrested for crimes that are being accused upon them will have their Miranda rights which should be mentioned to them by the police officers while they are being arrested (Smith, 1). These essay writer rights include saying nothing while being under arrest because any information that they divulge could eventually be used against them to prove their guilt in court, and having the right to have a lawyer to help them in defending themselves against the crimes being accused upon them.

The Edwards rule is related to this situation in the sense that once an arrested suspect demands for his or her Miranda right of having a lawyer, the arresting police officers must stop the interrogation process already (Acker and ‎Brody, 2). The police officers can only continue with the interrogation process once the arrested suspect’s lawyer has arrived already or if the arrested suspect is the one who expresses his or her willingness to communicate with the police officers. Any information that is secured by the police officers which violates the Edwards rule will not be honored by the court and cannot be used against the arrested suspect to prove his or her guilt. In this case, the arrested suspect clearly asked for a lawyer when his Miranda rights were being mentioned to him by Officer Martinez which led to the stoppage of the interrogation process. The interrogation process only resumed six hours later once the arrested suspect himself expressed his willingness to talk to the detective about the crime that he committed. Thus, there was no violation of the Edwards rule that happened in this case since the police officers honored the request of the arrested suspect for a lawyer as part of his Miranda rights and they waited for the arrested suspect to voluntarily talk to them before the interrogation process resumed. The police officers did an excellent job in following the Edwards rule in this case.

In my opinion, the suspect’s confession to the detective is admissible because there was no violation of the Edwards rule that was committed here by the police officers. When the arrested suspect asked for a lawyer as part of his Miranda rights, the police officers gladly obliged and allowed the suspect to get a lawyer. They stopped the interrogation process to honor the Edwards rule because they did not want to commit any violations in this regard. They waited for six hours until the arrested suspect willingly divulged what he knew about the crime that he did to the police officers which essentially became his confession. There was never an effort from the police officers to intimidate nor pressure the arrested suspect to make a confession with them since they knew that this would be a violation of the Edwards rule. Thus, there should not be any reason why the suspect’s confession to the detective will not be admissible in court especially as there was no violation that was done by the police officers in obtaining this confession in the first place.

Have someone “Write My Essay,” here.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) said that once the arrested suspects use their Miranda right to have access to a lawyer as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, the police officers cannot proceed with their interrogation anymore until the lawyer arrives (Ohlin, 3). The lawyer of the arrested suspect in this case never arrived to help him, but because he was willing to make a confession without any coercion nor pressure involved, this allowed the detective to proceed with the interrogation process even without the presence of a lawyer who was supposed to help the arrested suspect. Thus, it was clear that the willingness of the arrested suspect to make a confession made the difference in terms of clearing the way for the police officers to avoid violating the Edwards rule. Since there was no violation of the Edwards rule that happened in this case, the suspect’s confession to the detective is admissible and can be used against him to prove his guilt in court.


  1. Rich Smith. 2010. Fifth Amendment: The Right to Fairness.
  2. James R. Acker and ‎David C. Brody. 2004. Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective.
  3. Jens David Ohlin. 2019. Criminal Procedure: Doctrine, Application, and Practice.


Avatar photo

By Hanna Robinson

Hanna has won numerous writing awards. She specializes in academic writing, copywriting, business plans and resumes. After graduating from the Comosun College's journalism program, she went on to work at community newspapers throughout Atlantic Canada, before embarking on her freelancing journey.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts