[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
A grand jury indicted the defendant for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. Officers went to his home and informed the defendant that he had been indicted, that they had a warrant for his arrest and they wanted to talk to him about his participation. The officers explained that the indictment referred to the defendantโs association with others, and named four individuals. The defendant made incriminating statements about his involvement with these individuals. The officers took the defendant to a local jail and then, for the first time, advised him of his Miranda rights. The defendant signed Miranda waiver form and repeated his incriminating remarks.
Whether the defendantโs statements made at his home were the result of adversarial government questioning in violation of the Sixth Amendment?
Yes. The government deliberately elicited incriminating information from the defendant after the adversarial process had been initiated and without counsel present or obtaining the defendantโs waiver of counsel.
An indictment initiates the adversarial process. From that moment onward, the government is prohibited from deliberately eliciting incriminating information from a defendant unless the defendant waives his right to assistance of counsel (Sixth Amendment). The Court had no doubt that the government deliberately elicited information from the defendant at his home. In fact, the officers told the defendant that they wanted to speak to him about his involvement in the crime for which he had been indicted. These statements were taken in violation of the defendantโs Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present.
As for the defendantโs statements made at the jailhouse, the Court noted that it had not had the occasion to consider whether the Fifth Amendmentโs Elstad taint rule (from Oregon v. Elstad (1985)) was applicable to a Sixth Amendment violation. The Court sent this issue back to the appellate court for further review.
540 U.S. 519, 124 S. Ct. 1019 (2004)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved