The Case Of Mr. Griffin V. Salt Lake County Jail

It was on February 15, 1986 in Salt Lake, Utah, where the mother of Cammie K. reported the sexual abuse of her nine-year-old daughter by a man known as Mr. Griffin. Detective Strong and two other County deputies were assigned for the investigation on the case. During their investigation, detective Strong and other deputies went to interview Cammie K. at her home, where she told officers in different occasions that the Mr. Griffin sexually abused her. After that interview, the officers then went over to interview Mr. Griffin. At his home, Mr. Griffin confessed to being the abuser, but after the coercion interview by Detective Strong. Mr. Griffin was arrested and placed the Salt Lake County Jail. Two days later, Mr. Griffin was interviewed again

Griffin’s attorney filled a motion to suppress the two statements on the ground that his client was coerced during the interview and that they denied his right to legal counsel, but this motion was denied. Mr. Griffin was tried in Utah Third District Court. At a trial, both Mr. Griffin and officers swore to the first interview, but no tape or transcript was given into the evidence. The prosecution moved to play the edited second interview to the jury, and the defendant made an objection to that. Mr. Griffin was convicted by the jury on two counts of sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to serve two simultaneous terms of one to fifteen years in the Utah State Prison. After more than two years serving time, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Griffin’s conviction and reward the case for a new trail. State v. Griffin, the Court of Appeal apprehended that the trial court erred in denying Griffin’s motion to suppress his confession because it is considered involuntarily confession after the coercion questioning by Detective Strong. On regarding to the second interview, the Court of Appeals apprehended that the trial court erred in permitting the tape and transcript into evidence because Mr. Griffin did not make a valid waiver of his Miranda rights prior to the

Griffin. The Court ruled that defendant Strong’s rejection to allow Mr. Griffin admission to legal counsel before obtaining confession from Mr. Griffin is violation of rule of law. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel for any offense whether is petty, misdemeanor, or felony unless the right was knowingly and intelligent waived by the person. This is the right that gives rights to poor and rich the right to the assistance of counsel. Secondary, the violation to the right against self-incrimination that is secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment was used by the defendant Detective Strong for the use of “coercion” by intimidating and threatened the plaintiff Mr. Griffin in the order to get him confess for the child abuse case. Detective Strong told the plaintiff Mr. Griffin during the interview that if he doesn’t confess, he will put his back in the general jail where other inmates will “come down and smash [his] huts all over the floor.” This really did work for him to make the suspect confess, but it threatens the suspect and makes them confess for what they did not. It is a violation of rule of law to threaten the suspect in the order to get what we want out of them. Malloy V. Hogan, the Fifth Amendment protects a person against being convicted by his own forced testimonial communication.