Question

You arrest defendant for the sale of narcotics. You do not attempt to question the defendant before he is taken before the magistrate. The defendant is returned to jail after his appearance before the magistrate. You place an informant in the cell with the purpose of obtaining incriminating statements from the defendant about the pending narcotics case. Any statements deliberately elicited by the informant concerning the drug case are:

Answer 1

Statements elicited from a defendant by placing an informant in their cell may be inadmissible because they could violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, as per Miranda v. Arizona. The defendant must be informed of their Miranda rights; otherwise, statements may not be admissible in court.

Step-by-step explanation:

Any statements deliberately elicited from a defendant by an informant placed in their cell after appearing before a magistrate may be inadmissible in court, as they may violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination. This is based on the precedent set by the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, wherein it was established that certain procedural safeguards must be in place to protect a person in custody from incriminating themselves without being aware of their rights.

Under Miranda rights, a defendant must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. If these rights are not communicated, and the defendant is not aware of these rights, the interrogations or any elicited statements may be considered a violation of the Fifth Amendment. However, in the given scenario, as the defendant had already been before a magistrate, it becomes a gray area whether the subsequent indirect interrogation through an informant would require a new Miranda warning.