Question

Ivan, an informant who had often proven unreliable, told Alan, a detective, that Debbie had offered Ivan $2,000 to find a hit man to kill her husband, Carl. On the basis of that information, Alan obtained a warrant for Debbie’s arrest. In the affidavit in support of the warrant, Alan described Ivan as “a reliable informant” even though Alan knew that Ivan was unreliable. Alan gave the arrest warrant to Bob, an undercover police officer, and told Bob to contact Debbie and pretend to be a hit man. Bob called Debbie, told her he was a friend of Ivan and could do the killing, and arranged to meet her at a neighborhood bar. When the two met, the following conversation ensued: Bob: I understand you are looking for someone to kill your husband. Debbie: I was, but I now think it’s too risky. I’ve changed my mind. Bob: That’s silly. It’s not risky at all. I’ll do it for $5,000 and you can set up an airtight alibi. Debbie: That’s not a bad price. Let me think about it. Bob: It’s now or never. Debbie: I’ll tell you what. I’ll give you a $200 down payment, but I want to think some more about it. I’m still not sure about it. When Debbie handed Bob the $200 and got up to leave, Bob identified himself as a police officer and arrested her. He handcuffed and searched her, finding a clear vial containing a white, powdery substance in her front pocket. Bob stated: “Well, well. What have we got here?” Debbie replied, “It’s cocaine. I guess I’m in real trouble now.” Debbie has been charged with solicitation of murder and possession of cocaine. Should Debbie's post-arrest statements be admissible as evidence of her guilt?

Answer 1

Debbie's post-arrest statements may or may not be admissible as evidence of her guilt, depending on several legal factors:

• Miranda Rights: Whether Debbie was read her Miranda rights before being questioned by Bob is crucial. If not, her statements might not be admissible.

• Voluntariness: Statements must be voluntary. If they were coerced or obtained through improper police conduct, they may be inadmissible.

• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: If her initial arrest was based on a warrant with false information, evidence obtained as a result might be tainted and inadmissible.

• Exclusionary Rule: There could be exceptions allowing the evidence, depending on the circumstances and legal principles, such as the "inevitable discovery" or "independent source" doctrines.

Ultimately, the admissibility of Debbie's post-arrest statements will be determined by the judge during a pre-trial hearing or at trial. Both the defense and prosecution will present their arguments regarding the admissibility of the evidence, and the judge will make a ruling based on the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles. If her statements are deemed inadmissible, they cannot be used against her in court.