月旦知識庫
 
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫事相關   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   重要期刊 DOI文章
作者授權 本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
  【月旦知識庫】是否收錄該篇全文,敬請【登入】查詢為準。
最新【購點活動】


篇名
"法學英文:Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96; 96 S. Ct. 321 (1975)."
作者 林利芝
中文摘要
"本院檢視導致Mosley做出自白的情況,發現警方在此案完全尊重Mosley「中斷警方訊問的權利」。警方對Mosley進行第一次訊問之前,謹慎告知Mosley他並無義務回答任何問題,而且他可以保持緘默。Mosley口頭表示自己充分理解米蘭達警訊所保護的憲法權利,然後簽屬權利告知書。當Mosley表示他不想談論該起搶案,探員Cowie立即停止訊問,並且未試著重新訊問Mosley,也未以任何方式說服Mosley重新考慮接受訊問。停止訊問超過2小時後,另一名探員Hill將Mosley帶到其他地點,對Mosley訊問與前述搶案無關的凶殺案。警方對Mosley進行第二次訊問之前,探員Hill對Mosley再度宣讀米蘭達警訊。警方再次提醒Mosley他可以保持緘默和諮詢律師,而且警方謹慎給予Mosley相當充分且合理之機會行使這些憲法保障的權利。隨後探員Hill對Mosley進行的第二次訊問並未損及Mosley先前拒絕探員Cowie訊問之決定。探員Hill未重新訊問Mosley關於白塔餐廳的搶案,也未訊問關於藍鵝酒吧的搶案,反而是專注於訊問Mosley關於Leroy Williams遭槍殺致死的凶殺案,此起凶殺案的性質、發生的時間和地點不同於導致探員Cowie逮捕和訊問Mosley的搶案。雖然從案卷紀錄無法明確得知探員Hill對於探員Cowie對Mosley第一次訊問內容的知悉程度,但是他第二次訊問凶殺案的內容與Mosley先前拒絕回答關於搶案的任何問題,並不產生衝突。A review of the circumstances leading to Mosley's confession reveals that his 'right to cut of questioning' was fully respected in this case. Before his initial interrogation, Mosley was carefully advised that he was under no obligation to answer any questions and could remain silent if he wished. He orally acknowledged that he understood the Miranda warnings and then signed a printed notification-of-rights form. When Mosley stated that he did not want to discuss the robberies, Detective Cowie immediately ceased the interrogation and did not try either to resume the questioning or in any way to persuade Mosley to reconsider his position. After an interval of more than two hours, Mosley was questioned by another police officer at another location about an unrelated holdup murder. He was given full and complete Miranda warnings at the outset of the second interrogation. He was thus reminded again that he could remain silent and could consult with a lawyer, and was carefully given a full and fair opportunity to exercise these options. The subsequent questioning did not undercut Mosley's previous decision not to answer Detective Cowie's inquiries. Detective Hill did not resume the interrogation about the White Tower Restaurant robbery or inquire about the Blue Goose Bar robbery, but instead focused exclusively on the Leroy Williams homicide, a crime different in nature and in time and place of occurrence from the robberies for which Mosley had been arrested and interrogated by Detective Cowie. Although it is not clear from the record how much Detective Hill knew about the earlier interrogation, his questioning of Mosley about an unrelated homicide was quite consistent with a reasonable interpretation of Mosley's earlier refusal to answer any questions about the robberies."
起訖頁 1-11
刊名 作者授權  
期數 201507 (2015:7期)
該期刊-上一篇 "法學英文:Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96; 96 S. Ct. 321 (1975)."
該期刊-下一篇 "法學英文:Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469; 95 S. Ct. 1029 (1975)."
 

新書閱讀



最新影音


優惠活動




讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄