Jason Ormand was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault. The arresting officers did not give Jason his Miranda warnings. Jason
confesses to the assault. The DNA evidence taken from the victim shows with 99% certainty that Jason was her attacker. a. Because of the violation of Jason’s rights in the officers’ failure to give the Miranda warnings, the case must be dismissed. b. The case can still proceed with the DNA evidence. c. The case can proceed but only with the victim’s testimony. d. none of the above
Although the arresting officer did not give Jason a miranda warning (a notification of Jason's right to remain silence and decline to answer any questions or give information to the arresting officer), Jason already confessed to the crime. Above all the DNA evidence gave a compelling revelation of 99% certainty which is a full proof evidence for the case. Therefore the case can still proceed with the DNA evidence against Jason
Answer: The case can still proceed with the DNA evidence.
Explanation: In the U.S, the Miranda warning is a warning given by a law enforcement officer to criminal suspects in his custody advising them of certain constitutional rights, called their Miranda rights. This is their right to silence; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
Jason confessed to the assault without receiving his Miranda warning. Although he is guilty and the DNA evidence proved him guilty as charged. The case can still be proceeded with that evidence .
