Case Study Project: - Essay Example

1. Does the appellate court decision in Carter v. State (2001) pertain to the given situation? Yes, it does pertain to the given situation of Jack Jones although Carter v. State does not involve Jack Jones who was arrested for murder in the given situation. There was a warrantless search in a prison cell of the accused. Documents prepared by Carter for the Defense Counsel were seized by the Correctional Officers and used by the Prosecutor as basis to prove the defendant guilty. This happened also to Jack whose map was found in his prison cell.

The appeal was to correct an error of the Trial Court when it failed to suppress the evidence gained from Carter while in his cell. The Defense Counsel cited the 6th Amendment or the right of an accused to legal counsel and fair trial (See Appendix.), which the Prosecutor violated and which caused the Trial Court to err in the matter of not suppressing unlawfully gained evidence submitted as Exhibits 27 and 28. The decision of the Court of Appeals was to vacate judgements of conviction and to grant the defense a new trial.

In the given situation, the Jail Officers were simply doing their routine in accordance to Policy and Procedures for Inmate Cell Searches. The Defense Counsel was not questioning the confiscation of documents prepared for a prisoner’s lawyer. What was unfair and unjust was the use of such documents as evidence by the Prosecutors. It goes against the 6th Amendment protecting the privacy of the prisoner and his lawyer in preparing the defense. 2. To what extent does the appellate court decision pertain to the situation?

For the given situation, the Appellate Court decision in Carter v. State (Murphy, et. al. 2003) will apply to Jack Jones if the map found in his cell turns out to be for the use of his Defense Counsel. The situation says Jack Jones was convicted. If the basis of his conviction was the map found in his cell and confiscated then used as evisdence in court to convict him, then the appellate court will vacate the judgement to convict on ground of violation against the 6th Amendment. The Defense Counsel should admit there is no violation of the 4th Amendment which is about a warrantless search.

There was no need for a warrant to conduct the routine inspection or searching at the prison cell, because the Maryland policy and procedures pertaining to conducting search in the prison cells gave the Officers the right to search the prison cell of Jack Jones and Joe Jackson. Jail officers had every right to get any suspicious material kept in the prison cell. But they would have to return the map after knowing it is part of the materials for submission to the Defence Counsel. This appellate court decision should be used as a guide for both the Prosecutor and the Defense Counsel.

The Prosecutor may cross examine Jack Jones without presenting the “discovered map” as evidence, knowing that there is such a map. He can ask the Police Force to locate the bodies using the map found in Jack Jones’ cell. If the bodies are found, they can conduct further investigations about how they got killed, what was the murder weapon, and then formulate a hypothesis linking Jack Jones to the criminal act. But the map itself may not be presented in court