CHEAT SHEET WITH SOME EXPLANATION

There are essentially two confessions from the minor DEF in this matter

1) The police car: Miranda WAS NOT given and the question becomes was he in
A) Custody and B) was he interrogated. Both necessary for Miranda to trigger. If he was in
subjected to custodial interrogation the statement in the police car is thrown out NOTE there are
three separate questions asked in the police car and it can be broken down

Was there Custody during the confession in the police car?

The Court places emphasis on the fact that age is an objective circumstance and including it in a custody
analysis. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the custody analysis is an objective test.

Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the
interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at
liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are
reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or
restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest. A DEF age is a factor to be
considered when determining custody

Was there interrogation?

Interrogation” is defined as those words or actions by police, which are likely to elicit an incriminating
response, including a confession. Police are required to read an individual their rights (i.e., a “Miranda
warning”) before they may interrogate or question a detained individual.

2) The Police Station: here the minor was given the Miranda warnings but DEF atty will attack
claiming that the statement was still involuntary for the following reasons. Note he repeated asked for
his parents and was denied this request

A. He invoked his rights but the officer continued to question.

The following is the relevant testimony on this issue

Melish: Should I get a lawyer?

Off. Bolton: You have a right to an attorney.
Melish: Do you think I should have a lawyer, maybe I should talk to my parents on this?
Off Bolton: Your parents are on their way and you can talk to them when I think it's timely.
Melish: Is it better for me if I get an attorney?
Off Bolton Usually, you know, the District Attorney's Office, which will make a lot of important
decisions in this case, is usually not happy when you have an attorney but that's up to you.”

Court have ruled that Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” is too ambiguous to invoke the right to
Counsel), and Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 529-30, BUT Bolton is lying in his response and the issue
becomes does he reply indicate coercion? And do we look at the totality of circumstances, his age his
asking for his parents the police lying to him, his mental illness, his first brush with the CJ system?
 B. The Mental Illness
Prior to the crime, he had been diagnoses as non-violent psychopath. These folks well understand
reality and are manipulative. After the crime, the Def Atty expert diagnoses him as schizophrenic and
unable to understand the warnings. What illness the DEF did indeed have is a key component of the
argument

The issues of voluntariness of a confession given by a mentally ill individual was at the heart of the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Colorado v. Connelly, here, Mr. Connelly approached a Denver police officer and
stated that he had come all the way from Boston to confess a murder. Connelly was taken to police headquarters
where he openly detailed his story to the police and subsequently pointed out the exact location of the murder.
The next day, Mr. Connelly was sent to a state hospital for an evaluation. He was found to have a psychosis. A
psychiatrist opined that the psychosis interfered with his ability to make rational choices and motivated his
confession. The trial court suppressed Mr. Connelly's initial statement and custodial confession because they
were “involuntary,” notwithstanding the fact that the police had done nothing wrong or coercive in securing the
confession.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession
is not voluntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. The Court, rejecting the assertion that Mr.
Connelly's mental condition alone resulted in an “involuntary confession,” found that taking Mr. Connelly's
statements and admission into evidence had not deprived him of due process of law. The court noted that
although a defendant's mental condition may be a “significant” factor in the voluntariness of a
confession, it does not justify a conclusion that his mental condition by itself and absent police coercion or
intimidation, results in a statement that should be suppressed.

One more note in Connelly the Court expressly found that the arresting officer “perceived no indication
whatsoever that respondent was suffering from any kind of mental illness. Nevertheless, Connelly told the
officer that he had been a patient in five different mental hospitals. The case at hand is very similar since the
officer also knew he had been recently released from a mental hospital

C. He is a minor & he asked for his parents

SCOTUS in J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) has hold recently that a child is more likely to feel pressed by
the demands of adult authority figures, and that this is “self-evident to anyone who was a child once himself, including
any police officer or judge.” Further children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults. Children are different and
require special protections. The law though is rather muddy some states look at the totality of the circumstances as to
voluntariness while other require an adult present especially when requested

3) Public Safety Exception

This is a biggy because it trumps( sorry abo the word) all of the above and if found Miranda need not be given
In NY v. Quarles (PRE 9/11) The Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a
police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place
in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster,
handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun
(which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there".
The suspect was charged with illegal firearm possession. However, he argued that his statement ("The gun is
over there") was inadmissible in evidence because he had not first been given the Miranda warning the
Supreme Court found that Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be
paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The rule of
Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety. Under this exception,
trial, the questioning must not be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask
questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. Because the standard is objective, the
availability of the exception does not depend on subjective motivation of the officers. The Quarles Court
made clear that only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of
the public" were permitted under the public safety exception.
DOES THIS APPLY HERE? In the Boston bombing the FBI did not give Miranda for 72 hours the
American Civil Liberties Union, said it would be acceptable for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ask Mr.
Tsarnaev about “imminent” threats, like whether other bombs are hidden around Boston. However, he said that
for broader questioning, the F.B.I. must not “cut corners.”
So here does the PSE apply and how narrow or broad is it. NOTE the cop didn’t follow this issue up in his
question so really how real was the threat and the cop never asked a direct question Where is the other
bombs? like in Quarles where he asked where is the gun
 Order, Timing And Results Of Arguments And Other Instructions
 Time allowed for arguments. Oral argument shall be limited to a total of thirty minutes
per
 Team. Judges, at their discretion, may interrupt arguments to ask questions but may not
allow additional time. The petitioning team, by advance stipulation, may reserve up to
five (5) minutes for rebuttal
 Judge to keep time and give a 5-minute warning
 Defendant goes first as they are bringing the appeal, Judge has to ask if they want to
reserve 5 minutes for rebuttal If they elect to rebut, they get 25 minutes for their
initial argument and of course 5 for rebuttal. If not they get a solid 30 minutes The
state goes second and goes for a solid 30 minutes no rebuttal
 Ask lots of questions after you give them a couple of minutes to set it up then go for it
 Focus on definitions; what is custody? what is voluntariness? what is interrogation?
what is the policy? and make sure they go to the cases.
 I sent you a defense brief and a state brief, but not for these involved in front of you.
I didn’t want to influence your scores with their briefs. Finally, on the next page I
give everyone’s brief scored out of 50 points. You are to add this brief score in the
designated spot in the oral argument scoring template attached (AFTER the argument
is done- Please don’t look at it before) Since the oral argument is worth a max of 50
points, you add the scores together (DUH) for a max total of 100. The total high score
wins the competition. After you decide the score GO Back ON ZOOM as you do this,
give some kind feedback after announcing the winner
 Send me a summary by email of what happened
 I will not be present on the zooms in the early rounds
 All participants will be invited to the zoom finals as well as all the judges who
participated I will be the finals judge along with Alex T and Najah the student however
form the competition who are no longer in it will do the scoring on a google sheet
 There are three total rounds and 2 brackets
 Email or call 609 471 3898 me with any issues
 Attached as well is the schedule sheet with the zoom links
Love you all for helping

Intramural Competition Score Sheet for Oral Argument

TJU University Moot Court Competition
Intramural Moot Court Score Sheet
 Competitor _______________________________
Judge ___________________________________
Circle one: Petitioner Respondent

CATEGORY FACTORS (Illustrative, not Comprehensive)

Identifying Self and Co-Counsel, Identifying Client and

Client's Position, Statement of Issues, "Road Map", Prayer 25% of total score
Research, Preparation
for Relief, Knowledge of Record, Effective Citation to
and Organization ________
Authority, Grasp of Legal Principles at Issue, Appropriate
Amount of Reference to Notes

Responsiveness, Ability to Think on Feet, Flexibility,

Creativity, Listening, Not Interrupting Bench, Candor About
Ignorance, Necessary Concessions, Ability to Weave 30% of total score
Answering Questions
Questions into Argument, Engaging Entire Bench, ________
Welcoming of Questions, Using Questions to Advantage,
Transitions Following Response

Use of Facts, Legally Emotionally, Persuasive Context, 20% of total score

Persuasiveness,
Use of Policy, Effectiveness of Rebuttal, Sense of
Regardless of Merits ________
Conviction, Advocacy Tone

Eye Contact, Unnecessary Reading, Effective Use of

Notes, Clarity of Presentation, Issue Transitions, Proper
and Effective Case Citation, Effective Use of Time, 10% of total score
Forensic Performance Deference Toward Bench, Argumentative vs. Informative
Attitude, Nervousness, Gestures, Mannerisms, Postures, ________
Impression, Voice, Audibility, Tone, Rate of Speech,
Pronunciation, Grammar

Appropriate Attire, Behavior at Counsel Table, Compliance 10% of total score

Courtroom Conduct With Time Limit, Inappropriate Use of First Person,
Inappropriate Slang, Humor, Familiarity ________

5% of total score
Judge's Intuition Presence and Potential, Overall Impression
________

Score on a basis of 100 points and then divide by 2 for final score

FINAL ORAL SCORE __________

BRIEF SCORE __________

TOTAL _________
JUDGE
Date:
The winner of the case was________________ Representing_____________
FINAL ORAL SCORE __________

BRIEF SCORE __________

The runner up was________________ Representing_____________

FINAL ORAL SCORE __________

BRIEF SCORE __________

BRIEF SCORES
Noa Becker 24
Berry, Dillon 23.75
D'Amico, Anthony 21.4
D'Angelo, Eleanor 20
Kantorowski, Sebastian 21.5
Kaprielian, Sarine 23.25
Marzouk, Ahmed 20.75
Matulis, Taylor 20.6
Miller, Candace 15.75
Petrarca, Zachary
Reisbord, Samara 17.25
Skuza, Georgia 24.4
Stitt, Meredith 23.25
Stokes, Kalilah 20
Taveras, Jailene 13.5