Amicus (Friend of the Court) (3rd party) Brief for specified current Research Paper

Amicus (Friend of the Court) (3rd party) Brief for specified current Suprem Court case - Research Paper Example Human Rights Watch also has a role of investigating and exposing incidences of human rights abuse abuses and violation, with an aim of putting the abuses to the task of being accountable. The organization also seeks to challenge the government and other bodies or people who hold powers to observe human rights and to end human rights abuses, particularly with reference to international human rights standards as well as that of the municipal laws. As a leading human rights body, with the aforesaid specific roles, which are highly tangential to the issues of justice , the organization has a legitimate interest to participate in the case and to present an Amicus brief for the same. The organization has a lot of interest in ensuring that justice is done to the defendant. It is the Human Rights Watch that this honorable court safeguards future systematic human rights abuses by the state, and in particular the police, against the citizens. It is the interest of the organization that the pol ice and all government organs concerned are held accountable for human rights abuses that they perpetrate. ... Incarcerated on a disorderly conduct charge, the deputies were hoping to learn more about Fields' relationship with an underage male. Fields was not given his Miranda warnings, but was told he could leave the conference room where the questioning took place at any time. During the 7 hour questioning, Fields repeatedly told the deputies that he did not want to talk about the allegations of sexual misconduct that they had leveled against him. Eventually, however, he did admit to some of the behavior that had been alleged. On the basis of that information, and over the strenuous objection of his counsel, Fields was later convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal conduct and sentenced to a term of 10-15 years.   Fields appealed claiming that when he was first removed from his cell to go to the conference room, he was given no notice of what the deputies wanted. Further, because they had not Mirandized him and continued to question him even after he told them he did not want to s peak to them, the incriminating statements should be thrown out. Throughout his appeals in the state judicial system, his arguments were denied.   Upon making a habeus corpus motion to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, however, Fields' contention that his rights had been violated was upheld. The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed that lower court ruling which contrasted with decisions made in similar cases in other federal courts. The split in the circuits virtually guaranteed that the Supreme Court would take the case. On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.   The present case presents a question as to what amounts to being in custody and in particular whether or not a prisoner is always â€Å"in