The Relationship Between the 6th Ammendment and Police Interrogations

1387 Words 6 Pages
The Relationship between the Sixth Amendment and Police Interrogation BREWER v. WILLIAMS (WILLIAMS I), 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.CT. 1232, 51 L.Ed 424 (1977). The deceased, Pamela Powers, was on a family vacation at the YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa. A search was made in the attempt to find Powers when she did not arrive back from her trip to the washroom. The defendant, Robert Williams, was an escaped mental patient who resided in the YMCA where Powers’ family went for their vacation. A witness spotted the defendant carrying a large bundle with two white legs sticking out. The defendant’s lawyer stepped into a De Moines police station where he informs the police officers he received a phone call from Williams on what he had done. The lawyer, Henry …show more content…
One of the questions that was brought to the court was whether or not the Christian burial speech tantamount to an interrogation which entitled him right to counsel, such that with the absent of counsel violated his sixth amendment right (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, Kerr & Primus,2012, p.741). The court replied yes, the Christian burial speech was tantamount to interrogation (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, Kerr & Primus,2012, p.741). William’s lawyer suggested to accompany his client on the ride to Des Moines but was denied by the detective (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, Kerr & Primus,2012, p.740). The officer was reminded multiple times by the defendant’s lawyer to not speak of the deceased until William’s lawyer from Des Moines was present. The officer purposely said the Christian burial speech in hoping to find out as much information he can get in the car ride (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, Kerr & Primus,2012, p.742). The officer was aware that the defendant was initiated to an arraignment, which assistance of counsel is required, before driving him (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, Kerr & Primus,2012, p.741). The district court concluded that the evidence in the question was wrongfully admitted at William’s trial due to “(1) that Williams had been denied his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel; (2 that he had been denied his Miranda rights; …” (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, Kerr

Related Documents