Mock Trial

Speech Bullet Points

Main Argument:

• Deputy Kim’s statements do not represent the functional equivalent of interrogation.

• Therefore, Logan Gold’s statements should not be excluded from the trial.

Case Comparisons:

1. Arizona v. Mauro:

   • A recorded conversation between two people was not considered interrogation or its functional equivalent.

   • No manipulation or ploy was involved in allowing Mauro to speak to his wife.

   • Similarly:

     • Harper Dorais and Logan Gold’s conversation should not represent interrogation.

     • Deputy Kim allowed the conversation without any ulterior motives or benefits for Logan Gold.

2. Haynes v. Washington:

   • Haynes’ confession was ruled involuntary due to coercion—he was denied contact with his wife until signing a confession.

   • Contrast:

     • Deputy Kim did not coerce or manipulate Logan Gold.

3. Rhode Island v. Innis:

   • Officers’ private conversation that Innis overheard was not coercive or an interrogation.

   • Officers’ intent was private, with no effort to elicit an incriminating response.

   • Similarly:

     • Deputy Kim’s statements were intended to put Logan Gold at ease.

     • Kim did not mention the Gold Standard Inn, so there was no reason for it to enter Logan’s thoughts.

4. United States v. Kimbrough:

   • Listening to Kimbrough’s conversation with his mother was not interrogation.

   • Similarly:

     • Deputy Kim only listened to Logan Gold and Harper Dorais’ conversation.

5. Illinois v. Perkins:

   • Perkins’ voluntary statements to someone he believed was another inmate were admissible.

   • Similarly:

     • Logan Gold spoke freely to Harper Dorais, not Deputy Kim.

Final Argument:

• Private conversations are not considered interrogation, as seen in:

  • Rhode Island v. Innis: Officers could not expect their words to elicit incriminating responses.

  • United States v. Kimbrough: Officers could not reasonably foresee that listening in would lead to evidence.

  • Arizona v. Mauro: No ploy or manipulation involved.

• Deputy Kim’s actions:

  • Did not involve mentioning The Gold Standard Inn.

  • Did not create an environment where Logan Gold’s motives would likely be revealed.

  • Did not manipulate or coerce Logan Gold.

• Conclusion:

  • Under the totality of circumstances, Deputy Kim’s statements were not the functional equivalent of interrogation.