Fare .v. Michael. C - Case Study Example

Fare .v. Michael. C. Identify and explain the case’s issue related to juvenile justice. Juvenile’s interests legal representation during interrogation The case unveils conflicting authorities regarding juvenile representation especially in legal matters. This is due to both the probation officer, and the defendant’s confusion of not knowing who ought to be present during his interrogation. Despite the probation officer charged with the responsibility of safeguarding juvenile’s interests, he does not have any obligation of substituting the attorney or lawyer in legal matters (Blackmun, 1979).

Hence, the attorney or lawyer ought to be there during the interrogation and not the probation officer as the juvenile had claimed. Additionally, despite the defendant claiming that, police officers violated his Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right of being silent; he is ignorant of the law. Since, regardless of stating the right of silence, which the police violated, he waived the law by admitting interrogations when he had already declined (Scherr & Madon, 2012).2. Conduct a legal history of the case (this is just your mini legal brief).

The case entails a murder committed by an unknown person but after the arrest of Michael C. by the police and interrogating him while, in custody, they find him quilt. Hence, they file a case against him claiming the defendant was involved in the murder of Robert Yeager where he ought to face the law (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966). However, the defendant claims that, what he uttered during the interrogation was due to the police’s compulsion; hence, they did violate his Fifth Amendment. Therefore, the information attained in this manner according to him, the court cannot utilize it in determining his fate before the court of law.

Conversely, the court rules he was aware when he chose to continue with the interrogation despite the soldiers informing him about his privileges; so his action was due to ignorance (Scherr & Madon, 2012). The court eventually resolves that the defendant gave the required information voluntarily thus; California’s court erred in admitting there was an invocation of the right of silence when he asked for a probation officer instead of an attorney (Blackmun, 1979).3. Present opposing viewpointsMajority/Courts opinion The court holds that, California’s Supreme Court erred in stating there was an invocation of the defendant rights of inquiring the probation officer to be present during the interrogation incident (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966).

This is because the probation officer despite charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the defendant rights, his capacity does not qualify him to replace an attorney in legal matters. Since, the probation is a state’s employee responsible for ensuring the defendant’s conduct especially in relation with the public is as per stated statutes. Therefore, regarding this case, the probation office ought to be the first person to report the misconduct of the defendant in a court of law (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966).4. Providing an opinion piece about your feelings towards the issue The court’s verdict regarding the case is as per the law despite the involved parties not knowing the boundaries of their powers and obligations like the probation officer.

Probably, his ignorance prompted the juvenile in preferring his presence prior the commencement of the interrogation session (Blackmun, 1979). I am convinced notwithstanding the court’s just ruling, which involved these parties together with Californian court, have attained some enlightenment. The case’s implications will prompt much emphasis on adequate and correct provision of information to facilitate the juveniles’ assistance especially in legal matters (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966). Adequate information, will aid both parties to be seeking assistance from the right people, hence end further conflicting of powers.

ReferencesBlackmun, J. (1979). FARE v. MICHAEL C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979). Retrieved on 30Th September 2012 from Scherr, K. C., & Madon, S. (2012). You have the right to understand: The deleterious effect of stress on suspects ability to comprehend Miranda. Law And Human Behavior, 36(4), 275-282. doi:10.1037/h0093972U.S. Supreme Court. (1966). MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Retrieved on 30Th September 2012 from < http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi- bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=384&invol=436>