Mock Trial

What is the main argument regarding Deputy Kim’s statements in the trial of Logan Gold?

Deputy Kim's statements do not represent the functional equivalent of interrogation, thus Logan Gold's statements should not be excluded.

Which case ruled that a recorded conversation was not considered interrogation?

Arizona v. Mauro.

In Arizona v. Mauro, what was significant about the conversation between Mauro and his wife?

There was no manipulation or ploy involved allowing Mauro to speak.

How does Deputy Kim's conduct compare to Haynes v. Washington?

Unlike Haynes, Deputy Kim did not coerce or manipulate Logan Gold.

In Rhode Island v. Innis, what was the nature of the officers' private conversation?

It was not coercive or considered an interrogation.

What was Deputy Kim's intention when allowing Logan Gold's conversation with Harper Dorais?

To put Logan Gold at ease.

What similarity exists between United States v. Kimbrough and Deputy Kim’s actions?

Listening to conversations without coercion or interrogation.

What did Illinois v. Perkins establish about voluntary statements?

They are admissible even if spoken to someone perceived as an inmate.

What does the conclusion assert about Deputy Kim’s statements?

They were not the functional equivalent of interrogation under the totality of circumstances.

What is the significance of not mentioning The Gold Standard Inn in Deputy Kim’s actions?

It did not create an environment that would likely reveal Logan Gold’s motives.