What further cases or rights may Walter further rely on in proving his case?

 

The case consists of one hypothetical circumstance, followed by a few questions relating to the case. The case is worth 20% of your final grade. The only necessary material you need can be found in your compulsory reading. It is not advised to make reference to material outside of the book.

When you are writing the case, formulate your answers in a respectable manner that is comprehensive to read. Be careful of how you structure your sentences, since you will get penalized for incomprehensive or incomplete answers. The focus is not on the final answer of whether it is a yes or a no, but rather on what knowledge you have applied through your various references to cases, statutes, etc. If you are making a reference to a case contained within the book, or a statute, create a reference to such material.

 

The Hypothetical Case: Walter v. U.S.

 

Hank, a federal police officer has been trailing Walter for quite some time, suspecting that Walter has been involved in an armed robbery that occurred one week prior to the present events. On the eve of 17 February 2014, Hank parked his car outside of Walter’s house at 11143 Albuquerque St. and began a stake out.  Hank noticed that Walter was doing something suspicious in his house, but could not be certain to what that activity was, since he could only see silhouettes created by the curtains. Nearly a day later around the same time, Walter exited his home, and went for a stroll, but in a rushed manner; Hank followed accordingly. After following Walter for some twenty minutes, Walter entered a restaurant; Hank remained outside, observing what his suspect is doing. To Hank’s surprise, Walter was calmly eating a steak, not raising any further suspicion. Yet, Hank remained valiant in his task to keep trailing Walter.

Shortly after finishing his meal, Walter exited the restaurant, and proceeded to the more luxurious part of the town. As the situation turned out, Walter was suspiciously casing a store that sold diamond accessories. Hank was hidden in some bushes nearby, observed Walter and started approaching him. Seeing Hank, Walter remained in place. After some brief questioning, Hank proceeded with frisking Walter through a gentle pat down and found a gun that Walter carried, this lasted about two minutes. He immediately arrested Walter, read him his Miranda rights, and took him to the police station for interrogation.

During the interrogation, Walter requested to see his lawyer. His request was denied. Hank, alongside with another interrogating officer, coercively approached Walter questioning him about what he was doing in front of the store, and whether he was the one responsible for the armed robbery that happened last week in a similar store, two blocks away from the one where Hank arrested Walter. The other officer even hit Walter a few times on the head, demanding answers. After a few hours, Walter gave in and confessed without his lawyer being present.

Shortly after, Walter was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail on the basis of an armed robbery, as well as the illegal possession of a weapon. The evidence used against Walter was the gun that Hank had found on Walter, as well as Walter’s own confession. Walter is now appealing on the grounds that the confession cannot stand as evidence because it infringed his rights granted by the 5th Amendment, right against self-incrimination. Furthermore, Walter is claiming that he was denied his due process rights under the 6th Amendment provision granting a right to a lawyer. He is not disputing the charge for the illegal possession of weapons.

QUESTIONS:

What further cases or rights may Walter further rely on in proving his case? What may the government use in justifying their arrest of Walter (did Hank have a probable cause to frisk and arrest him)? Lastly, what do you believe that the final outcome of the Court of Appeals might be?