Final answer:
The admissibility of Jeannette's statement depends on whether she was informed of her Miranda rights during the custodial interrogation. Without the proper procedural safeguards, her statement may not be presumed admissible in court. Additional protections for juveniles and requirements for a knowing waiver of counsel must also be considered.
Step-by-step explanation:
The admissibility of Jeannette's statement taken during a custodial interrogation without an electronic recording depends on various legal provisions. Notably, the Miranda v. Arizona case established that the prosecution cannot use statements from custodial interrogations unless procedural safeguards are used to protect against self-incrimination. This includes the need for police to warn suspects of their right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogation. Given the historical importance of these safeguards, Jeannette's statement might not be presumed admissible if these procedural requirements were not met.
In juvenile proceedings, additional protections are often in place, given the acknowledgement by the Court that juvenile suspects might not be tried as adults and must understand the charges and evidence against them. If Jeannette was not provided with adequate counsel or was deemed incompetent to stand trial, her statement could be challenged. Moreover, as the Montejo v. Louisiana case illustrates, even if a defendant waives their right to counsel during police interrogations, such waiver must be made knowingly and voluntarily to be valid.
Applying these principles to Jeannette's case, her statement might indeed be inadmissible if her rights under Miranda were not upheld, especially if she was not fully aware of her rights at the time of interrogation.