Essay: Analyzing Mcnabb vs United States

Pages: 2 (835 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 1  ·  Level: College Junior  ·  Topic: Sports  ·  Buy This Paper

McNabb vs. United States

This essay takes a look and discuses in depth landmark cases that have shaped history and made impact on law enforcement. These are the McNabb vs. United States case and Miranda v. Arizona case.

Interview and Interrogation Background

The main purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information from an unwilling, reticent, non-cooperative individual. The result of an interrogation (that is considered 'successful') is getting a confession from the suspect. However, in most cases interrogators fail to acquire information that is critical enough to resolve a case successfully (Vessel, 1998). Often, the guilty do not make any admission during interrogation. They manage to outwit the experienced officers interrogating them. Such maneuvering helps criminals leave unpunished, free to continue committing crime, and cause suffering to the community. As far as interviews and interrogations are concerned, particularly as an aspect of law enforcement, Criminal Investigation (Swanson,, 2012) has been said to be the most practical, all-inclusive and accurate book in its field.

Significance to Interview and Interrogation/Landmarks

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, four cases that involved custodial interrogation were addressed in the Supreme Court's decision. Detectives, a prosecuting attorney, and police officers questioned the defendant in each case in a room cut-off from the external world. None of the defendants was warned of his rights at the beginning of the interrogation. The questioning managed to elicit oral admissions in the four cases. In three of those cases, the questioning resulted in signed statements and the suspects brought to trial (Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona -- United States Courts). The Court decided that the Fifth Amendment privilege is applicable even outside the court proceedings. Its purpose is to protect freedom of action of people from infringement in any way, so that they do not incriminate themselves unwittingly, or even coerced to do so perforce. The prosecution should therefore not use statements that stem from interrogations where the suspect is held in custody, unless there are effective procedures that protect the defendant from self-incrimination.

The McNabb-Mallory rule is not applicable in prosecutions other than those of a federal nature. It derives from the McNabb v. United States, and the Mallory v. United States cases of the Supreme Court. The rule is not constitutional. It is based on the authority of the federal judiciary with the purpose of overseeing the process of criminal justice administration in federal courts. Its aim is to protect a suspect from secret interrogation that the arresting officer might… [END OF PREVIEW]

Karen Horney Essay

Collective Bargaining the Taft-Harley Act of 1946 Research Proposal

Effects of Employees Managers Interaction on Employees Attitude Towards Their Company Thesis

Security Planning and Assessment Thesis

View 6 other related papers  >>

Cite This Essay:

APA Format

Analyzing Mcnabb vs United States.  (2016, May 25).  Retrieved August 18, 2019, from

MLA Format

"Analyzing Mcnabb vs United States."  25 May 2016.  Web.  18 August 2019. <>.

Chicago Format

"Analyzing Mcnabb vs United States."  May 25, 2016.  Accessed August 18, 2019.