The Case of Maryland v Shatzer

Circumstances

In 2003, Michael Blaine Shatzer Sr. was incarcerated in a Maryland facility for child sexual abuse. While detained he was questioned regarding a separate incident, the accused of sexual abuse against his son. When authorities attempted to question him on this accusation, Mr. Shatzer maintained his right to remain silent. Two and a half years later, in 2006 Shatzer was questioned again regarding sexual misconduct against his son. This time, Shatzer admitted to sexual deviance in the form of masturbation. As a result of this admission, Shatzer was found guilty of the crime.

Violation

The defendant petitioned the case to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, citing the evidenced used was inadmissible, a violation of the law, and unconstitutional. The defendant argued this violated 5th amendment and 14th amendment rights also observed under the Miranda law, Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Miranda provides that individuals are aware of their rights and discouraged from self-incrimination, (Maryland v Shatzer, 2010). In Edwards v. Arizona (1981), the courts recognize that “a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights” (Maryland v Shatzer, 2010). This specifically addresses individual in custody and continued questioning.

State Court

The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed and remanded, (Supreme Court, 2010). Judges decided that two and a half years was not sufficient time to revoke Shatzer’s original waiver to remain silent. Furthermore, the court considered Shatzer’s continued incarceration. Shatzer did not undergo a break in custody and cannot be applied to his release “back into the general prison population between interrogations”, (Maryland v Shatzer, 2010). This identifies the evidence used to convict Shatzer as inadmissible observed in Edwards v Arizona. Although more than two years expired since his initial waiver, Shatzer did not instigate communication with authorities regarding the accusation nor provided counsel during integration (Maryland v Shatzer, 2013).

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, “reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion”, (Maryland v Shatzer, 2010). The count found that two and a half years was sufficient lapse to interrogate the defendant regarding the matter. Edward v Arizona is a ruling of the court and not a constitutional right. Therefore Edwards should not be extended. The Miranda ruling ensures individuals are aware of their rights. The court then determined that two weeks must lapse before authorities can question an individual if Miranda rights are applied.

 

 

 References

Maryland v Shatzer. (2010). Surpreme Court. (no. 08-680) 405 Ms. 585,954 A. 2d 1118 Reversed and Remanded. Opinion of the Court. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-680.ZO.html

Maryland v Shatzer. (2013). Case Basics. Roxbury Correctional Instutute. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 04 October 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_680>.

 

Advertisements

About Russia Robinson

I use my writing talents, and skills I’ve learned through academics and experience, to benefit the greater good of society. Conducting research, writing articles, essays, and blogging, I give informative information on a variety of topics and issues that affect society. I also write creative works like children’s books, short stories, poems, and a novel in progress. I earned a BA in English creative writing and American literature from San Francisco State and graduate studies in Technical Writing at Kennesaw State University. Through my career in education and mental health I have spent more than 10 years’ helping young people succeed. I am a certifiable Language Arts teacher, working in education, social services, and mental health. Interested in my writing services? Feel free to contact me via email.
This entry was posted in Law and Crime and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s