mock trial study cases

Miranda v Arizona 

• The defense could argue that Deputy Kim’s actions made Gold feel pressured or like they were being interrogated, even though they were told their rights (Miranda warning). The defense will say that Gold’s statements should not be allowed in court because Gold asked for a lawyer, and the officer’s actions (like having a hand on his gun, setting up a recorder, and talking about political consequences) made the situation feel intimidating and forced Gold to talk without a lawyer.

• On the other hand, the prosecution might argue that because Gold was read their rights, Miranda was followed. But the prosecution would be wrong if the officer’s actions created an environment that felt coercive, which Miranda is supposed to protect against.

Arizona V Mauro 

• The rule says that just watching a suspect talk to a family member isn’t considered interrogation unless the police use tricks to get the suspect to say something incriminating.

• The defense would argue that Deputy Kim went further than just watching. By setting up the recorder, standing too close, and putting his hand on his gun, he created pressure on Gold to speak. This made Gold’s statement feel forced, and therefore, it shouldn’t be used in court, according to the Mauro case.

• The prosecution might argue that Deputy Kim was just there, like in the Mauro case, without directly questioning Gold. But if the officer’s actions seemed designed to pressure Gold into talking, then Mauro doesn’t help the prosecution’s case

Rhode Island V Innis

• The “functional equivalent” of interrogation means any actions or words by the police that they should know are likely to get the suspect to say something incriminating.

• The defense could argue that Deputy Kim’s comments about Gold’s spouse and his hand on the holster were things that any reasonable officer should know could make Gold feel pressured to respond. This could count as the “functional equivalent” of interrogation, so Gold’s statement should not be used in court under the Innis case.

• The prosecution might argue that Innis doesn’t apply because Deputy Kim didn’t directly question Gold. However, Innis would still hurt the prosecution if the officer’s actions seemed likely to get Gold to say something incriminating

Illinois V Perkins 

Normally, Miranda warnings aren’t needed if the suspect doesn’t realize they’re talking to the police, like in undercover situations.

• Even though Deputy Kim clearly identified himself as law enforcement, the defense could argue that this wasn’t a casual conversation like in the Perkins case. Instead, it was a stressful situation where Gold felt intimidated, which made it hard for them to speak freely. The way Deputy Kim showed authority may have made Gold feel forced to say something.

• The prosecution might argue that Perkins doesn’t apply because Deputy Kim didn’t ask Gold questions, and Gold knew he was a cop. However, this argument is weaker if it seems like Gold only spoke because of the pressure from Deputy Kim’s strong authority.