Please separate Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Part 1

REMINDER: Throughout this course there are assignments in which you will be exposed to portions of a real case and trial from 2015-2017. Even though it will be easy to find information about this trial from outside sources, it is highly suggested that you limit your exposure to what is presented in class unless specifically instructed otherwise. The progression of the course is intended to give you information about the events from beginning to end as they happened and looking ahead in the case may diminish your overall experience. In the event that you are already familiar with the case, attempt to remain unbiased throughout the semester for tasks involving the case.

This discussion continues the Michael Slager case and covers the meat of the trial between the opening and closing statements.

The trial took four weeks to complete. To prepare yourself for this discussion, please review the following four articles that provide information about the key events in each week and then watch the two videos of Michael Slager’s testimony.

• Key events in Week 1 of Michael Slager’s murder trial (Links to an external site.)
• Key events in Week 2 of the Michael Slager murder trial  (Links to an external site.)
• Key developments in Week 3 of Michael Slager’s murder trial  (Links to an external site.)
• Key developments in Week 4 of Michael Slager’s murder trial (Links to an external site.) 

Part 1 of Slager’s testimony (Note that part of the testimony is missing due to a technology issue in the courtroom):

Part 2 of Slager’s testimony:

INSTRUCTIONS

For this discussion, you will put yourself in the role of one of the 12 jurors.

Based on the information in the opening statements and what a juror likely had already seen, respond to the following prompts in your initial post by providing an explanation for each topic:

• What are your thoughts after being exposed to more of the proceedings?
• What key moments in the trial stand out to you the most?
• What constitutional issues have you recognized in the trial?                                                                    

Part 2: Assignment: Death of a Child Scenario

In this scenario you will be placed in a situation where you will be an officer. Your role will be to make a decision based upon the scenario. Keep in mind, that your decision must be based upon the law and not based upon opinion. Bear in mind that the fact pattern will allow you to make critical decisions regarding the incident, but also consider what route the case may take as it proceeds through the criminal justice system, from the initial encounter at the scene with the potential defendant(s), to potential arrest processing, during the court process, and beyond. Lastly, you must also consider what the civil implications arising from the entire case may be and how it will affect everyone, especially you.  

SCENARIO

Detective O’Shea and Detective Infante are in their office when they receive a call notifying them of the death of a child. As members of the homicide squad, they gather their equipment and head to the scene. 

Upon arrival at the scene, they encounter the father of the child who name is John Bruckner. The location, an apartment appears to be in disarray and several items in the child’s bedroom appear to be overturned. The child has been removed from the location and taken to a local hospital. The detectives look around the apartment but do not find anything remarkable but do observe the bedroom of the child, see blood on a mattress, and photograph it. 

Det. Infante asked Mr. Bruckner who agrees to escort him to the stationhouse where they can talk further and in private. Prior to leaving the apartment, Mr. Bruckner asks Det. Infante, “Should I get a lawyer?” Det. Infante, who merely requested that Mr. Bruckner accompany him, replies, “That’s up to you, but I didn’t ask you any questions.” Mr. Bruckner then says, “I can’t believe what I did. Why did this happen?” 

Mr. Bruckner still accompanies the police to the stationhouse. Upon arrival, Det. Infante and Det. O’Shea place Mr. Bruckner into an interview room. Mr. Bruckner asks, “Can I leave?” Det. Infante told Mr. Bruckner that he can leave but asks him to stay for a little while. Noting Mr. Bruckner’s demeanor and his statement again saying, “Maybe I should get an attorney,” they place Mr. Bruckner in holding cell based on a suspicion of murder. 

The medical examiner was conferred with who stated that the child died from blunt force trauma. Seeing as a homicide occurred, the supervisor requested Detective Clifford fingerprint Mr. Bruckner. Det. Clifford escorted Mr. Bruckner to the fingerprint machine and while fingerprinting him discussed the reason Mr. Bruckner was there. Det. Clifford sees what appears to be blood on Mr. Bruckner’s jacket and asks him to take it off, places it into an evidence bag and has it brought to the squad room where it can be sent to the laboratory for examination. 

A short time later, Det. Clifford was told to escort Mr. Bruckner to the courthouse for processing. While in the police car, Mr. Bruckner stated spontaneously, “I am scared and don’t know what to do, can I trust you?” Mr. Bruckner stated, “I think I killed my son.” As it appeared that Det. Clifford had earned his trust, he decided to inform him that perhaps speaking to the district attorney might be best thing to do and notified the prosecutor to have a videographer standing by. 

Upon arrival at the courthouse, Mr. Bruckner was placed in an interview room. Det. Clifford then told him what his options were, advised him of his Miranda warnings and discussed the case. Mr. Bruckner waived his Miranda warnings, but again asked, “Should I get a lawyer? Maybe before I talk I should speak to an attorney.” Det. Clifford exclaimed that is your choice and began questioning Mr. Bruckner. A full confession was eventually obtained, and Mr. Bruckner was charged with murder. 

ASSIGNMENT

There are two parts to this assignment.

Part A

Consider the following topics related to the scenario:

• Did Mr. Bruckner ever clearly ask for an attorney?
• Did Det. O’Shea or Det. Infante act inappropriately in their interaction with Mr. Bruckner?
• Did Det. O’Shea or Det. Infante have an obligation to explain the situation to Det. Clifford?
• Should any of the investigators have acted differently in this scenario?
• Were Mr. Bruckner’s constitutional rights violated?

A critical skill in this course is to be able to read existing cases and apply the decisions therein to your work in the field. To help you develop this skill, you must defend your assertions for each scenario using at least two existing cases.

Part B

Put yourself in the role of the district attorney in this case. You want to ensure that you have all of the information necessary to get a full confession that is admissible in court. Write a request for a written report that is directed toward all of the investigators involved. What questions do you have for them? Are there any specific concerns you have about their actions?

PART 3

For this discussion, consider the Slager case and the scenario above. Respond to the following prompts in your initial post:

• What parallels can you draw between the two scenarios?
  • Create and post a Venn diagram to show the similarities and differences between the cases.
• Are there a specific constitutional amendments that you believe apply to the events in both cases?
• Was evidence in either case mishandled?
• Based on what you know so far, do you think that the suspect’s constitutional rights were violated in either of the cases?
  • If so, how?