Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hi, need to submit a 2000 words essay on the topic Alaska law- Voluntariness of confession: State's Memo in opposition of Motion to Suppress confession.This is as held in the case of Giacomazzi v. Sta
Hi, need to submit a 2000 words essay on the topic Alaska law- Voluntariness of confession: State's Memo in opposition of Motion to Suppress confession.
This is as held in the case of Giacomazzi v. State, .633 .P.2d 218, 222 n. 4 (Alaska 1981) where the state has the burden of proving the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver (Goldstein and Naomi 38). In addition, a confession through a preponderance of the evidence and the burden is usually heavy in matters involving juveniles as held in .S.B. v. State, .614 P.2d 786, 789 n. 5 (Alaska 1980).
In finding out the voluntariness of a confession, the court must follow three steps in order to reach the right conclusion and determination. The trial judge must be able to find the external phenomenological facts that surround the confession before inferring whether there exists an internal psychological fact that in this case denotes the mental state of the accused person (Thomas 96). The judge then assesses the legal importance of the inferred mental state as was enumerated in Troyer v. State, .614 P.2d 313, 318 (Alaska 1980) while quoting the U.S Supreme Court decision of  .United States v. Brown, .557 F.2d 541, 547-8 (6th Cir.1977). This means that the court must satisfy itself of the credibility of the witnesses and this call for the appellate court to defer to the trial judge findings of the historical fact and only overturn them if they are not factual or have errors. The appellate court must in such an instance perform its duty of examining the entire record and making its own determinations as to the mental state of the accused person and how it is legally significant to the case beforehand.
Here, the court should reverse the decision of the trial judge that was related to the confession by Ridgely as it had not met the burden of proof that the confession was made voluntarily and that the accused had waived his rights under the Miranda rights. His conviction should therefore be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial to determine whether the evidence obtained through the confession used in the first court was admissible in the first place.
