Good morning Justices of the Supreme Court the claim that we are going to be presenting today is why in the case of Vierra vs Tennessee the Appellant it should be found not guilty and why also the Appellant should not receive the death penalty.

First of all the police wrongly confronted the respondent. the police officers use the functional equivalent of interrogation and they the police officers did not give him his Miranda Rights. these violations  should have led to the criminating statement by the respondent to being dismissed by the court.

Secondly even if convicted he responded should not receive the death penalty because of the mitigating circumstances.




I. THE POLICE WRONGLY CONFRONTED THE RESPONDANT
A. The police officers used the functional equivalent of interrogation knowing that it was likely that the Respondent would confess.
Interrogating a suspect when they request a lawyer or choose to stay silent during custodial interrogation breaks the suspect's 5th and 14th amendment right's. A custodial setting is "inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak freely when he would otherwise not do so," Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). By blocking his only exit, waiting close to him, and talking about things that would emotionally upset him we must conclude that the pressures of this situation were that would compel him to speak freely when he would otherwise not do so.
In this instance we can see police officers using physiological ploys to pressure the suspect into incriminating himself. The police officers have a conversation, knowing he will over hear it, deeply pertaining to the individual so much that he become very emotional. Considering the fact that the statements that the police made were in themselves false, we can only conclude that the main goal of offices was to get him to confess even when he expressly stated he was going to stay silent. Interrogation is a "practice that the police should know is reasonable likely to evoke a incriminating response from a suspect." Rhode Island v. Innis, 100 S.Ct. 1682 (1980).
Interrogating a suspect so that he is emotionally over whelmed and extremely upset after he specifically invoked his rights, should constitute his confession to be dismissed from the court.
B. The police officers did not give him his Miranda rights.
During custodial interrogation police officers are required to give the suspect his Miranda rights to insure that he knows of his ability to exercise them. "the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored," Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). During this process we can view that the Respondent's rights were never read to him. We can also view that his request to wait for his parents as his request to remain silent. His right's should have been respected, and he should not have been interrogated.
Because of this and other facts the incriminating statement he made should be dismissed from the court.
-4-
II. EVEN IF CONVICTED, VIERRA SHOULD NOT RECEIVE THE DEATH PENLTY
When taking into consideration giving the death penalty they must take into consideration several circumstances. First of all the Trial Court should have not sentenced him with first degree murder because of the fact that he did not play any role in the murder or rape, and being an accomplice does not give the possibility of being convicted with first degree murder TCA 39-13-202. The court should also take into consideration the fact that he is 18 and has no prior record.











































Good morning honorable Chief Justice and honorable associate justices of the tennessee supreme court today I Anand Gowda and my co-council Carson Sheumaker will be representing the appellent, Joseph Vierra in the case Vierra vs State of Tennessee.

We are here to argue that firstly that Joseph Vierra’s 5th and 14th amendment rights were violated by the trial court and secondly, that Tennessee state law does not constitute the death sentence and it therefore should be removed.

We will start with how Joseph Vierra’s 5th and 14th amendment rights were violated by the trial court. In this instance we can see police officers using physiological ploys to pressure the suspect into incriminating himself. The police officers have a conversation, knowing he will over hear it, deeply pertaining to the individual so much that he became very emotional. Considering the fact that the statements that the police made were in themselves false, we can only conclude that the main goal of offices was to get him to confess even when he expressly stated he was going to stay silent.

Based off of Miranda v Arizona. If in custodial interrogation without being informed of your rights any statements cannot be used. A custodial setting is Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). "inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak freely when he would otherwise not do so," The setting of this event had the police blocking the exit. Additionally, the psyche of Vierra must also be noted. Because of Miranda v Arizon in that “Voluntariness doctrine in state cases encompasses all interrogation practices which are likely to exert such pressure upon individual as to disable him from making free and rational choice.” Because of the prior events and the fact that this was his first confrontation with the police we must put ourselves in his place and see how overwhelming this would be. When police showed up he must have been very nervous as to have less resistance than he would in a non-police dominated environment.

	Addressing the fact that he asked for his mother and was not asking for council we would like to point out in
Miranda v Arizona “No effective waiver of right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after warnings as to rights have been given”
Additionally, as said in Miranda v Arizona “a Pre Interrogation request for lawyer affirmatively secures accused’s right to have one, but his failure to ask for lawyer does not constitute waiver.”

Az v Muaro knowing if its interrogation “using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment cannot be used”


 Interrogation is a "practice that the police should know is reasonable likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect." Rhode Island v. Innis, 100 S.Ct. 1682 (1980). In Stawicki v Israel it states quote “In this case, although the detective intended to appeal to Stawicki’s emotions when he asked him to reveal the location of Esser’s body so that she could receive a proper burial, Stawicki testified at the state suppression hearing that he thought the detective’s religious inferences were “stupid.” where police strategies and inducements overbear the suspect’s will as to render a confession involuntary.” Interrogating a suspect so that he is emotionally overwhelmed and extremely upset after he specifically invoked his rights, should constitute his confession to be dismissed from the court.

	Finally when taking into consideration giving the death penalty the court must take into consideration several circumstances. In Estelle v Smith  “Because of lack of appraisal of rights and a knowing waiver thereof, death sentence cannot stand.” Because he wasn’t informed of his rights during this whole situation it should be dismissed

	Other circumstances need to be taken into account such as in Estelle v Smith “Future dangerousness of the defendant.” Vierra had no prior history of crime, and only complied with helping out of fear of his own life. Vierra played a minor role in the crime and was 18. Base off of State v Dicks a mere accomplice should not be punished as grievously as the person who actually committed the murder.

	Vierra was still in high school. Considering all of the pressures involved in this, Sullivan His only friend who pressured him to commit the crime, and the fact of that the police’s tactics that put him in extreme pressure to elicit an incriminating response against his will, the Confession and Death penalty should be overturned by the Court.






Rebuttal


We would like to address some of the topics that were discussed by the opposing council.

Firstly we would like to again emphasis the differences in the parallels in Stawicki v Israel where the person convicted said that the argument made was “stupid” and did not compel him to elicit an incriminating response.

Secondly We would like to reject the argument of subtle compulsion that the opposing council reffered to when they said it was a regular conversation because of the fact that in RI v Innis the statements made by the police were true and of valid concern. The statements made in the case at hand were a lie, and specifically physcologically designed to deter Vierra against this will to elicit an incriminating response.


Not cpmelled to be witness
Rhode island v innis wouldn’t be similar in the fact that he was
Us v Jones. Freedom of action was restrained

It was resonably likely to elicit n incriminating response
It was deisnged for him
Az v Muaro not applied since he was not informed of his rights
His rights weren’t read





May it please the court, we shall begin. Good evening honorable Chief Justice and honorable associate justices of the tennessee supreme court today I Anand Gowda and my co-council Carson Sheumaker will be representing the appellee, the state of Tennessee in the case Vierra vs State of Tennessee.

	We are here to argue that firstly, Joseph Vierra’s 5th and 14th amendment rights were not violated by the trial court and secondly, that Tennessee state law constitutes the death sentence and it therefore should be upheld.

After the night of the murder, when the police came to Mr. Vierra’s house, they informed him of the murder and inquired if they could ask some questions because he was one of their suspects. He informed them that he preferred to keep silent till his mother arrived. The officers waited in the living room 10 feet away and held a conversation. After overhearing the conversation, he then decided to turn himself in and explain what had happened. This confession was unprompted therefore spontaneous.

	The opposing council might say that this is self-incrimination’s usage as a confession in the case is against the 5th amendment, but Vierra was not held to answer and allowed the officers to enter to ask questions. Additionally it is mentioned in Miranda v Arizona “Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible  in evidence.” “Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth amendment and their admissibility is not affected”, if a suspect makes a spontaneous statement while in custody prior to being made aware of the Miranda rights, law enforcement can use the statement against the suspect, provided that police interrogation did not prompt the statement.

Based off of Miranda v Arizona. If in custodial interrogation without being informed of your rights any statements cannot be used. A custodial setting is Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). "inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak freely when he would otherwise not do so," The setting of this event was in the respondent's own home, while the police were 10 feet away as  well as to not be intimidating.

In Rhode Island v Innis it is stated that “But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of the police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”
The police officers did have a conversation nearby that did pertain to the case at hand, but they did not know that the respondent would infact suddenly make an incriminating response.
	In Brewer v. Williams, Williams’s statement was dismissed because of the police making the “Christian Burial Speech” which led to an incriminating statement. While infact this circumstance is different in that the police officers were not in a compact environment where the defendant could not escape nor was the defendant under arrest or in custodial interrogation. In this instance the defendant was not under arrest or provoked to make an incriminating statement.

When giving the death penalty the Court must take into consideration several circumstances. First of all the Trial Court rightfully sentenced him with first degree murder because of the fact that he complied to all of Sullivan’s requests during the murder and rape including kidnapping and tieing the victim to a tree. Additionally, it was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” tca 39-13-204 p196 and involved physical abuse through the form of rape and 5 shots of a gun which was unnecessary to kill the victim which. Additionally TCA 39-13-204 pg (Clause I section 7) The murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant, while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, any first degree murder or rape”
 Also in State v Dicks it was found that if the defendant was found to merely a getaway driver there would be no reason for the death penalty, but because of his actions in burial and because the defendant did infact aid in the kidnapping of the victim then he should be sentenced with the death  penalty.
.


Question/Rebuttal Responses:
	Miranda Rights -  In Miranda v Arizona 1966 "the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored,", His rights were never read
	In Stawicki v Israel it states quote “In this case, although detective Sobczyk intended to appeal to Stawicki’s emotions when he asked him to reveal the location of Esser’s body so that she could receive a proper burial, Stawicki testified at the state suprpression hearing that he thought Sonezyk’s religious inferences were “stupid.” where police strategies and inducements so overbear a suspect’s will as to render a confession involuntary.”
	Death Sentence - addressed later
KEY - Rhode Island v Innis - Officers arrested & miranda in car. Said they needed 2 find shotguns. Functional equivalent of interrogation is that it's known to elicit a response. He was found guilty because he was not known to likely elicit a response.
Brewer v Williams - Christian burial speech case. Was found inadmissible because of the fact that a lawyer was not present.
Estrella v Smith - Doctor that listened to guy testified against him
Berk v McCarty - Traffic stop is allowed
State v Dicks - Getaway drives don’t get death
Az v Maruo - Wife Case found not dismissed because the police had  likely thing
Minnisota v Murphy - Probation officer got his confession required & used it. It was allowed because he was compelled because of his age & prior court record & known miranda rights
Miranda v Arizona - Rights to speak
Ny v Quarls - Rights dont need to be read when there could be danger
State v Smith - Overturned because of jury.
State v Wright - Trial judge rejected some specific mitigating circumstances
Stawicki v Israel - Emotional differences not the same because of the fact he said it was stupid


Marianda v ariz
Estrella v Smith - Doctor that listened to guy testified against him

He let them in his house and could have asked them to leave at any time since he was not under arrest.
Estrella v Isreal there was religious pressures but it was still found valid.
Intentionally audible argu
Repidently
Police dominated
NY v Quarls police dominated car
Berk v mcerty
Minisota v murhpy
Us v
Rhode v innis

Miranda rights and audibe conversation are the only arguements
V williams
Miranda coercion
Proper christan differs because of the setting
Significant history
Estelle v smith
He wasnt forced
Relitvly minor. They left off more.