Summary: The Case Of Fare V. Michael

The case of Fare v. Michael concentrates on what the Miranda case law did for an adults 5th Amendment rights, but now deals with a juvenile and an added element (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The defendant in this case was 16 years old and had been charged with murder (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The juvenile defendant did not ask for an attorney, but did ask for his probation officer as he was currently on probation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The police denied his request to have his probation officer contacted and brought in. They then proceeded with the custodial interrogation after the defendant agreed to waive his rights. The defendant did make statements and provided drawings, all of which incriminated him of the murder. It was appealed all the way
Prior to this case, the court stressed that having an adult present while police interrogated juveniles was essential for their protection from police authority (Henry, 2007). This standard was no longer true after Fare v. Michael C. In this case, the courts now utilize the “totality of the circumstances” to validate whether a confession from a juvenile is allowed in court (Henry, 2007). The defendant’s attorneys were not successful at trail in suppressing the statements and drawings provided to police during interrogation (Henry, 2007). However, they were successful getting the evidence suppressed at the California Supreme Court. This court stated that the juvenile’s probation officer “stood as a guardian in the juvenile’s life” (Henry, 2007, p. 348). Because of this, the court said when the
Supreme Court conveyed that a totality of the circumstances was appropriate to determine Miranda rights for both adults and children. These circumstances for juvenile defendants would include such things as the person’s age, experience, schooling, criminal and/or delinquent history, and aptitude. Also, the ability of the youth to comprehend Miranda warnings and the ramifications that is possible if the decision to waive them is invoked (Henry, 2007). Using this standard of circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court said Michael C. knew his rights, he understood them, and on his own free will, waived his 5th Amendment rights and overturned the California Supreme Court (Henry,