My only contention was, if this record was not developed to the point to show that this conduct resulted in the elicitation of statements on the part of the accused. This witness, Fisk, testified that the defendant told her that she was still in love with Layton or Hayton whatever his —. We do know that defense counsel interviewed the witness the evening before she was placed on the witness stand. Obviously, they might draw some inference that I am keeping out a confession or an admission that the crime was committed. As long as it’s not elicited by an interrogation because we’re interested in protecting the right against self-incrimination from interrogation and not against overhearing voluntary and spontaneous statements. In the course of procuring that conviction, the State of California, subsequent to the arrest of the petitioner and subsequent to the time when she was represented by counsel overtly. We have no California case but in view of the circumstances of the defendant being represented by counsel having been arraigned in Court, we would — we would not distinguish Massiah on that ground. Mr. Chief Justice, I — when I refer to these various things —. I think that it is perfectly obvious after this witness had testified that the reason the counsel determined not to object was a tactical one. I understand you to say that with your opinion that this conduct of putting this woman in the cell with her at that time and then using the testimony she got from her without any warning of any kind is not misconduct. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases. The precedent in this case was a dentist. The prosecutor has had the report obviously but that point is we don’t know what was in that report. He went back to the house he had been staying in and fell asleep on a mattress with a lighted cigarette in his hand. Before Ms Miller’s case emerged into the public eye, we crowdfunded the case that eventually became the ‘People’s Challenge’.Alongside Ms Miller we successfully challenged the Government’s position that Article 50 could be triggered without Parliamentary authorisation. The Supreme Court set out a new three-part test for determining whether or not material is obscene and remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration under the new standard. Later on, her instructions changed and that’s when there might have been a violation. Did this woman — didn’t this woman admit that she have told the petitioner that Hayton have blown the lead off the case? I just wanted to state that the position of the Attorney General that we’re not arguing before this Court that this type of conduct was condoned by our office. A mandatory sentence of life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Sending up a newspaper clipping with the undercover agent. Please, specify your valid email address, Remember that this is just a sample essay and since it might not be original, we do not recommend to submit it. I suppose the undercover testimony in fact testified that the defendant had confessed of course then that would have been — it could have formed a testimony of that but that doesn’t. Respondent Miller and Frank Layton were charged with violating the National Firearms Act by transporting a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce. During the robbery, one of Jackson’s accomplices shot and killed the store clerk with a shotgun. While crimes committed by juveniles is tragic on many levels, neither the Constitution nor the Court’s precedent prohibits mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders. Is this before or after the state court injunction? They are the product of a carefully planned and executed process of subtle interrogation and trickery. She always denied that she killed her husband. Then your whole point is that this was all voluntary and spontaneous. I wrote that letter because certain of the conduct, it was not shown to have evoked any of the comments introduced into evidence was not approved by our office and certainly wouldn’t be approved in this day and age. No, this statement was never made to the petitioner according to the record. In order to protect her from interrogation, they set up a 24-hour watch at the jail. In both cases, a 14-year-old was convicted of murder and sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison without parole. The evidence of her statements in the jail cell, if they were the result of this conduct would never been admitted in a California court, but the defense fail to raise the issue and that is our — that is our contention. Is there any procedure by which the police are notified of something like this and notified of your officer’s judgment about it? Interviewed the witness in the following morning, the prosecutor put her on the stand but before that happened, the defense counsel said to the judge, It is unfair to make me object before the jury. Ultimately, she was requested by the sheriff to bring certain matters to the attention of petitioner and that is the conduct that was referred to in my letter where she brought a newspaper clipping up and showed it to the petitioner. Those were her initial instructions when she was placed in the jail cell and that was her testimony. Now, what conduct to the sheriff do you admit is unconstitutional and what do you condemn as far he is concerned. If they do use the evidence, this is not the kind of blunder, the kind of mistake made in the heat of trial that the harmless error doctrine was made to accommodate. R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant) Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – In the matter of an application by Agnew and others for Judicial Review. They killed Cannon by beating him with a baseball bat and then setting fire to his trailer home with Cannon inside. Can I assume that a woman in her cell over a week will say something, will hold the conversation on something. True but the point is she could have — she could have testified that she still love Arthwell Hayton but that she had given up any idea of ever marrying him because he was no good which is one of her statements. I think Massiah stands for that, Your Honor. This statement as I indicated was made by the Court that he did indicate an objection that would have to be made in the presence of the jury. There’s no showing that there was a discussion when these statements were brought out. I think that Miranda would help me simply because it does nothing to dilute Escobedo and Miranda and it require I mean — and Massiah and it require warnings. He would rather have won it than taking this appeal. Are you suggesting that the Court changed its line overnight or perhaps I misunderstood what you told us. If this record demonstrated the elicitation of statements, there wouldn’t be — wouldn’t be any question on question one in this case but we have a record that is inadequate and we have this failure to object thus the issue was not brought into importance of the trial and this was an early case, October of 1964. I point this out because the harmless error rule which is at issue here today has been carved out in my judgment and from a reading of the Chapman and Fahy cases and the notions expressed therein in order to avoid summary reversal where a comparatively minor piece of evidence is led in through a blunder on the part of the prosecutor or the part of the judge and an expensive retrial needs to be avoided because no substantial prejudice results. The Court’s opinion improperly takes authority away from the democratic decisions of state legislatures. To go in through the back door demolishes any value in creating a strong front door and that is exactly what would happen. Now, the excuse has been brought forth that the reason for a failure to object the following day was a fear that the jury would feel the evidence was being concealed. Back to the harmless error point for a moment. This type of admission certainly can never be harmless because it is an admission to the motive in the case. Positive duty not to use it, isn’t that correct? There is no request whatsoever for an opportunity to do this and there was no objection on the part of the defense even after the prosecution commence to examine the witness. At the time that the evidence was offered, the defense counsel exhibited some surprise and said, Well, I have never interviewed this witness as it is my right and I object that this was done in the lobby but it was done on the record. I believe that it should be stamped out of that level but if not, if this conduct is permissible, if law enforcement officers may make the attempt to put spies in cells because some people can’t make bail because the charges capital or because they don’t have money then they will certainly do so if the Court gives one wink of approval on it. She was not an experienced policewoman, she was an undercover agent. R (Miller & anor) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] The case dealt with the purely legal question of whether the government was entitled to trigger article 50 without both Houses of Parliament passing legislation enabling it to do so and royal asset being given by the Queen. But if she killed her husband, she would have done it before the moment of death. And you say that that — I know but he didn’t press for a ruling. This case involves two companion cases. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings. The respondent hereby goes on record as condemning such conduct.