Jerome Scales's Conviction From A Jury In Hennepin County District Court

Michael Jerome Scales attempts to appeal his conviction from a jury in Hennepin County District Court of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree intentional murder. He was sentenced to life in prison meant Putin to Minnesota State Statute 609.185 (1) and state statute 609.185(3). The second-degree intentional murder was the murder of otha brown the mother of Scales' girlfriend who they lived with and with their three children. On October 4th, 1992 Scales asked Browns if she could drive him to the hospital as he was feeling sick. She agreed and they both left with Scales returning only a few minutes later according to Brown's husband's Testament to grab her purse. Brown's husband woke up between the hours of 2:00 a.m.

Later that very same day at around 7:00 p.m. scales returned home where he was subsequently arrested. his route to the Minneapolis Police Department homicide unit where two investigators questioned him after they gave him Miranda warnings. Scales said he understood his rights and indicated that he wished to waive them. They interrogated them at the BCA for about 3 hours before conducting a formal question-and-answer statement that was simultaneously transcribed no other parts of the interview were recorded. At the Rasmussen hearing scales disputed much of what the officers had to say about the interview and stated he was never told he was under arrest nor was he given any warning until the interrogation was well underway. Scales gave two statements but his second was the most consistent stating that “ he was looking for his ID on the way to the hospital, he reached into the seat pocket and felt a knife. As in the first story, the appellant said he returned to the house where he picked up Otha Brown's purse and his son. Consistent with the second story, however, the appellant stated that when they reached the grocery store Otha Brown tried to give him more money than he

custodial interrogations do not need to be recorded to satisfy the due process requirements in the United States. Moreover, there were seven police officers that testified one of which was not even part of their Department so it stands to reason that it is unlikely that seven officers would attempt to circumvent the law. However, it should be noted It is believed that there should be a remedy to the law as the recording of evidence allows for a quicker and more effective examination of the interrogations and better protect the rights of citizens. “An exclusionary rule is a drastic remedy. I believe such a drastic remedy should be applied only after a full hearing of all the policy implications and with adequate notice to law enforcement. See State v. Spurgeon, 63 Wash. App. 503, 820 P.2d 960, 963 (1991). This is particularly true where a right is not found to be rooted in the state