This question should be answered in CRAE format (Conclusion, Rule, Application, Explanation). Please include all relevant keywords, terms, and phrases when discussing each topic.
Late one night in Plateau City, a young couple in an unusually small foreign car was struck by a speeding BMW as the former crossed an intersection with the light green in their favor. The impact sent the smaller car spinning into one of the large trees near the intersection, and the larger car rolled over several times before coming to rest in a nearby field. Witnesses saw a male get out of the BMW and run away, but could not describe him sufficiently to permit the police to make an arrest. The BMW was not registered with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, and its last registered owner lived in another part of the state and could prove that he had sold it several years ago.
Several weeks later, Jacque, awaiting trial on burglary charges, called the officer who had arrested him to the jail cell where he (Jacque) was incarcerated and asked to speak to a Highway Patrol officer.
When the Highway Patrol officer came to the cell, Jacque told him that he had been the driver of the BMW that had struck the unusually small foreign car. Jacque said that he just wanted to get it off his chest, since the female passenger in the small car had been killed in the accident. Jacque told the Highway Patrol officer that he had been drinking heavily before driving the BMW that night.
Q. During Jacque’s murder trial, a critical issue is the amount of alcoholic beverages he had drunk before driving his BMW that evening. During a recess in the proceedings, a bailiff transferring Jacque from his holding cell to the courtroom persuades Jacque to state that he had had at least half a fifth of gin shortly before driving the BMW and hitting the unusually small foreign car. When the prosecution attempts to put the bailiff on the stand to testify as to Jacque’s statements, Jacque’s attorney again objects. How should the court rule?
NotepadClick anywhere in notepad to add a note
First, note that the incriminating statements from Jacque were elicited by the bailiff when Jacque was without legal counsel. Now, consider the bailiff’s relationship to the government and the bailiff’s role in criminal proceedings.