The original scenario had said Mayo was placed under arrest and was not read his rights before transported to the local county jail. If the confession was legally obtained, not coerced physically or psychologically, and is a true voluntary confession then it is a valid confession. The statements in the police report cannot be used in court as evidence nor any comments made before the Miranda warning. The Miranda warning needs to be signed by Mayo to ensure that the statement is valid. The investigating officer (which was not typed and illegible). There is not enough information to properly answer this question. If the video footage of Mayo is presented with all other evidence to the Judge showing a valid confession then it could be used in court. There is too much information missing in order to analytically present a proper answer, however in assuming the information gaps are filled this could be a valid confession. I would request information that is missing be presented before making an unbiased, fair, and knowledgeable decision.
2) What will the court look at to determine if this confession will be admitted into evidence at trial?
The court will hopefully look not only at eye witness statements (Dawn Dietz, the fireman Joe), but evidence such as video footage, body cam footage, bank account records, and collect sufficient evidence from the bar. The court will look at the totality of circumstances including when the confession was gained, Mayo’s state of mind, and if legal representation was offered during this time (Huddard, 1991).
3) Did the officer conduct an illegal interrogation of Mayo? Discuss why.
There is no information provided that would indicate that the Interrogation of Mayo was conducted illegally