1. Jensen v New York Fifth Amendment Rights

2. The Case  On September 6 th, 2004 Marie McClure was the victim of a hit-and-run accident in Albany, New York, resulting in her hospitalization and death.  Witnesses identified the car, but not the occupants or the driver  Within three days, Albany police arrested Amanda Jensen, Carl Bridgmen, Maia Rutledge, and Terrence Ferrario as the occupants of the car.

3. The Case  When brought in for questioning, Jensen curled into the fetal position and repeated the words, “I want my father” over and over again.  After two hours of waiting until she stopped, police began their routine interrogation, during which, Jensen admitted to being both the driver and intoxicated.  When presented Jensen’s confession the remaining defendants identified Jensen as the driver and agreed to testify against her

4. The Problem  Though Jensen is 19, her father is an attorney specializing in International trade law.  Although the investigators did contact her father (who resided in Dayton, OH) they proceeded in the investigation based on the fact that Jensen is not a minor, and did not need a parent present to consent to questioning.

5. The Result  During trial, Jensen’s appointed attorney claimed that she was denied her right to counsel and that the state of New York is at fault for not waiting for her attorney father to be present during questioning.  New York investigators and attorneys claim that Jensen waived her right to silence voluntarily and that if Jensen intended her father to represent her as legal counsel, that she should have specified this intent during questioning

6. The Hearings  District court: District court judges allowed the confession into the trial  The Court of Appeals Ruled that Jensen’s rights were violated

7. The Arguments  Jensen Argues that the investigators should’ve known that her father was an attorney And that any attorney request stops questioning

8. The Arguments  State of New York Argue that they followed procedure to the letter:  Read her the Miranda rights  Allowed her the opportunity to seek counsel With a phone call or Public Defender and maintain that saying, “I want my father” is not the same as saying “I want a lawyer.” In addition,  This falls under the “good faith” mistake category – if one even exists  Though her father is an attorney, he is not a criminal attorney and would’ve represented a serious conflict of interest in this representation

9. The Debate  Class in half – 7 justices  Time: Decision: 5 min Arguments: 20 min (10 per team) Prep: whatever’s still available before 11:50/ 1:50