. In this case, after agreeing to hear the case (known as granting certiorari) t

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

. In this case, after agreeing to hear the case (known as granting certiorari) t

. In this case, after agreeing to hear the case (known as granting certiorari) the United States Supreme Court held that detectives interrogating Thompkins did not violate Thompkins’ Miranda rights in obtaining his confession.
Read the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins. You may also find it helpful to listen to the oral arguments the lawyers made before the United States Supreme Court.
Prepare an argument for:
If your last name begins with A through M you must argue in favor of the majority’s decision in the case. (Finding that the detectives did not violate Thompkins’ Miranda rights).
If your last name begins with N through Z you must argue against the majority’s decision and in favor of the dissent. The dissent argued that Thompkins’ confession was illegally obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
Remember to support your required position with what you have learned from this week’s assigned reading about constitutional safeguards.

Click Here To Order Now!

Related