This is my first ever case briefing pls help! is this right? INTRODUCTION
The statements that Lee Crody made during the car ride with Officer Bird are not admissible because the defendant was not informed of his Miranda Rights during the conversation. This was a custodial conversation as Croddy was in a situation where he was cut off from the outside world and unable to be with his lawyer. In the car, Bird called Lee out in a hostile way that intimidated him into answering his questions. As Officer Bird did not use these procedural safeguards, Croddy’s statement should not be included.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Lee Croddy is a popular influencer who often spread conspiracy theories. After learning information about a topic he was working on for a video, Lee told one of his fans to get the info Remy broke in and was charged with burglary. As Remy was staying with Croddy at the time, when Remy was arrested, Officer Bird asked Lee to come down to the station to answer some questions. Bird offered to give him a ride and Lee accepted. When Lee Croddy was in the car with Officer Bird, Bird started a conversation with Lee. He called Lee out as being an “anarchist.” and never informed Lee of his Miranda Rights, violating the 5th amendment

THE CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION VIOLATED THE 5TH AMENDMENT AS THE OFFICER NEVER INFORMED THE DEFENDANT OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS

The Miranda rights state that an officer must inform a witness of the right to remain silent and not answer their questions until a lawyer is present preceding any further questions as any statements will be inadmissible by the 5th amendment. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) The officer did not use these procedural safeguards, ignoring this right of Croddy. In the car ride with Officer Bird, Croddy could not leave the car and was deprived of movement or contact with his lawyer. When the officer began calling Lee out, a hostile environment was created in which Lee’s answers constituted a custodial interrogation without procedural safeguards.
People v. Boyer, 768 P.2d 610 (1989)

LEES STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSABLE

CRODDY BEING QUESTIONED IN AN UNMARKED VEHICLE NOT KNOWING HE WAS IN CUSTODY TRANSGRESSED THESE RIGHTS

When Croddy stepped into the car, he was unaware that he was in custody as he was in an unmarked police car with no bars or other description that could let Croddy know other than a police radio. At this time Lee did not know that he was being interrogated, as he was never informed of his Miranda rights. Stansbury v. California 511 U. S 318 (1994)
The fifth amendment states that “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor to be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law.” Lee answering these questions in such a custodial investigation without being informed of his rights is self-incriminating and inadmissible under the U. S Constitution.

AS THE CONVERSATION IN THE CAR IS NOT CASUAL, IT IS NOT ADMISSABLE

The prosecution will argue that this is a casual conversation and that is admissible similar to People v. Andreasen Cal. Rptr. 3d 641 (2013). However, unlike People v. Andereaden, speculation should not be made that Croddy knew he was in interrogation as a single radio is not enough information to determine whether he knew at the time. This could hardly be considered a casual conversation, as Officer Bird continuously badgered Croddy about being an “anarchist.” Croddy’s Miranda Rights at this time did need to be read has it was unclear to Croddy that this information was to be used to self-incriminate violating once more the 5th amendment.

CONCLUSION

The defendant requests that this conversation be excluded due to the evidence stated above as it violated his Miranda and 5th amendment rights.

September 10, 2016: you’ve been assigned to investigate a hit-and-run incident. when you arrive at the scene, it’s raining and foggy. the roads are slick. it looks like the crash occurred during the early evening, about 5: 30 pm, a couple hours before dark. you notice a green 2010 chevrolet camaro lying off the road on an embankment and a blue 2014 toyota camry several yards back. both vehicles are damaged. robert b., the driver of the camaro, had severe back injuries and was taken to the hospital. the only witness is the toyota driver, fred h. fred h. was driving in the right lane when the accident occurred. according to fred, a red ford pickup truck (year and model unknown) suddenly swerved across the highway from the left lane. the pickup truck hit the front left side of the camaro in one of the center lanes, pushing it off the road before speeding away. the camaro lost control and sideswiped the toyota as it skidded across the highway, denting the toyota’s left side panels. the camaro then skidded across the grass to the right of the highway and crashed into a low concrete wall. the hood and both sides of the camaro have extensive damage. the toyota driver pulled up behind the camaro and called the police. the accident occurred near miami, florida, on i-95 northbound, a 5-lane highway. it happened just before the exit 16 offramp. fred h. and robert b. both passed breathalyzer tests. neither had any passengers in the car. as you search the scene, you notice: tire tracks/skid marks left on the pavement deep red scrapes across the camaro’s panels and green scrapes across the toyota’s panels broken car window fragments of a hood or panel a torn rag an empty beer can deep tire marks and footprints in the mud of the embankment at the scene use the information above to answer the following questions. for each of a – e above, give an example of a type of evidence you could collect from that item and how you would collect it. (one to two sentences each) fill out a crash form for the incident. use the form florida crash report and use the information in the description above to create a brief three- to five-sentence summary for the “narrative” section. use the witness’s description to draw a diagram of the incident. if you can’t find a piece of information for the form, just leave that part blank. impression evidence three separate tire marks were collected from the scene. the marks were found in a pattern that supports fred’s version of events. three tire tread marks, a, b, and c. tire a appears to be worn flat in the middle from overinflation, tire b is narrow and appears worn on the outside edges, tire c looks normal and is not worn at all tires leave different types of marks based on their wear patterns. for example, tires that are constantly flat will leave different impressions than tires that are normally inflated or overinflated. the tires tend to wear out on the parts that are most exposed to the road. you checked out the tires of the two vehicles at the scene. here’s what you found: two tires side by side. a camaro tire which appears to be in good shape, and a toyota tire which appears worn on the outside edges the camaro had normal tires, but the toyota’s tires were a little flat and overly worn on the outside edges. the condition of the red ford truck’s tires is unknown. match the three impressions with the cars that most likely created them. what can you hypothesize about the red pickup’s tires? could this have anything to do with the accident? explain your answer. (two to four sentences) a red pickup fitting fred’s description was later seen running a stoplight. police pulled it over for a check. its tire impressions looked like this: a single tire tread mark which appears worn on the outside edges based on the evidence, do you think this was the same red pickup that rammed the camaro? why or why not? (one to two sentences)

Do we actually do work like math, reading, etc? ?

What was a super predator and how did that effect juvenile sentences?