DISCUSSION: Based on your reading of the Miranda v. Arizona and Dickerson v. U.S

DISCUSSION:
Based on your reading of the Miranda v. Arizona and Dickerson v. U.S. cases, what are some of the issues that come to mind regarding the sufficiency of the confession in the hypothetical below? Discuss at least two other court cases that you have uncovered while conducting your legal research into the issues raised by the hypothetical’s fact pattern.
HYPOTHETICAL:
You are a paralegal working for Smith, a law partner in your law firm. Smith calls you in to talk to you about a client matter. Smith relates the following to you:
Smith’s client, J.B. Big Bucks, has a son, Honest Buck, who was arrested and charged with homicide after the police found him one block from the scene of a home invasion robbery that resulted in the gunshot murders of the home’s occupants. A 911 caller described screams coming from the home and described to the police dispatcher a fleeing male, approximately 6’0”, 190 lbs., aged 25-35, wearing blue jeans, a black baseball cap, sneakers, and a red t-shirt.
J.B.’s son, Honest, is 29 years old, 5’10” and 200 lbs. He lives two blocks down the street from the murder scene. Honest has no criminal history but is known in the neighborhood for singing loudly as he walks to and from his job at the local pizza parlor located about four blocks from his home. Honest generally must pass the house where the murders occurred as he walks to and from work.
Honest attended high school through 11th grade but dropped out after the teasing and bullying by other students became too much for him to bear. J.B. had Honest evaluated by a psychiatrist several years ago. The psychiatrist said that Honest may suffer from some type of autism but he could not be sure where Honest fell on the spectrum of autism without conducting further testing. J.B. decided not to pursue further testing, as he did not trust those “head doctors.”
When Honest was arrested by the police officers, he was wearing a light blue baseball cap, dress shoes, blue jeans, and a black t-shirt.
The police brought Honest to police headquarters for questioning at approximately 10:30 pm. Two homicide detectives were present for questioning. Prior to questioning one of the detectives read Honest the Miranda warnings. The detective then asked Honest if he understood his Miranda rights. Honest said that “yes,” he did understand them. The officers then asked if he wished to waive his Miranda rights and to speak with them without a lawyer being present to represent him. Honest replied, “I guess so, since you think I’m guilty anyway. What’s the use of having an attorney?”
The detectives questioned Honest until 4:00 am; however, Honest denied any involvement in any crimes. Finally, at 4:15 am, one of the detectives said to Honest, “Honest, if you just tell us the truth, we can all go home.” Honest said to the detective, “Really?” The detective nodded affirmatively. At that point, Honest gave the detectives a full confession.
Prosecutors then charged Honest with two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of armed robbery. (No gun was found on Honest and his hands tested negative for gunpowder residue.) During the interrogation (which was audio and videotaped), the detectives revealed to Honest that the victims were killed by gunshot. However, Honest otherwise related to police general details about the killing that could have arguably been surmised by most “real-crime” TV-show aficionados. Two of Honest’s favorite TV shows are The First 48 and Forensic Files.
When J.B. learns of his son’s arrest and the charges he’s facing, he retains Smith to represent him. Smith asks you to conduct the basic legal research into issues surrounding whether Honest’s confession was a truly voluntary one under existing case law.