The constitutional amendments The Supreme Court ruled to affirm a suspect’s right to remain silent and not give testimony that would incriminate them as protected in the Fifth Amendment

The constitutional amendments
The Supreme Court ruled to affirm a suspect’s right to remain silent and not give testimony that would incriminate them as protected in the Fifth Amendment. Once a suspect emphasizes their right to counsel and invoke the right to remain silent, a police officer cannot continue interrogating the suspect until an attorney is present. In this case, the suspect invokes the right to counsel and any further interrogations leading to a confession of sorts that could be used to convict the suspect in trial is a breach of the suspect’s rights. The sixth amendment gives an accused the right to counsel while on trial and during interrogations. This suspect ought to be dully processed to appear before a judge while in the process of a lawyer (Kim, 2017). The Eight Amendment also applies in this case as the suspect is guaranteed of a reasonable and consistent bail while his case is on trial.
The Edwards Rule relation
Edward’s rule came about to protect suspects in custody from being approached by an officer or a different officer once they have invoked the right to counsel. In this case, the suspect does not voluntarily give evidence to the second officer but is approached by the officer who reads the Miranda and proceeds to enquire whether he wanted to talk. Edward’s rule states that in such a situation, the police officer cannot obtain an admissible statement to be used as evidence of crime by the suspect even if he waives his right to speak in the presence of a counsel (Rutledge, 2010).
Edward’s rule bars and officer from reinitiating interrogation with a suspect once he indicates that he has the right to a lawyer unless in the circumstances that the suspect initiates the further proceedings. Even a separate investigation relating to the offence that a suspect has been arrested cannot take place until the counsel is availed. The court has expressed its view on this for the case where a suspect has been held in custody for so long that they are intimidated into giving incriminating evidence. Even so, the prosecutor must show that when a suspect decides to waive their right to a counsel and initiate further interrogations before a counsel is availed they were not in distress for having spent a considerable amount of time while under custody (Rutledge, 2010).
The suspect’s confession to the detective
The constitution guarantees a suspect of their right not to give self-incriminating evidence. Further, the courts have determined that under the Edwards rule, a suspect’s evidence after invoking their right to counsel cannot stand in trial. In this case, the suspect is approached by a different investigation officer after spending close to five hours in custody. This officer breaks the Edwards rule by asking the suspect if he wanted to talk despite his earlier indication that he would only do so if a lawyer was provided to him. The confession he makes is there null and void as it is obtained through means that do not conform to the rule of law. It is from this view that I, therefore, find the evidence inadmissible before a judge and cannot be used to convict the suspect whose right to counsel had been violated.