No, the right to remain silent means you must remain silent. After you have invoked your right, if you open up conversation, answer a question, make small talk, or comment about the weather you have effectively negated your right to remain silent and officers can resume questioning you without a lawyer present. Police can and will use anything you say against you especially if you choose to talk. Even if your just mumbling to yourself. Only conversations between you and your attorney are protected.

If the two spoke in the police department or county jail they have no expectation of privacy. Also, most police departments/ county jails have signs posted that state AUDIO VIDEO RECORDING IN PROGRESS. Lennie is not being questioned by the police, and as long as Gorge is not acting as an agent of or for the police than the recording can be used. If this could not be used then we should et rid of phone calls and visits before an attorney csan meet with the client. Although, how many people would wave the attorney to see a friendly face?

No.

He understood the rights before hand. They did not change. He chose of his own free will to relay the story in front of another officer, after he was notified of his rights. That is his fault.

Its not pulling a fast one. An officer was present. How more blatant and obvious can it be. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when one is in jail. He need not be advised of the recorder, but he could reasonably assume he was being recorded.

i don’t think so….he should think and know anything that he was saying in a police department would be either recorded or video taped thats why the police officers only asked the friend if it was ok to record the conversation….i think this should stand in trial and he should be convicted

No, HOWEVER there is a very slight chance that the Judge will not allow the tape as evidence if it can be proven that George entered the room with intent to implicate his friend for reason that Lenny spoke to George with a confidence that George was his friend. The fact that they both worked at the same place and depending on George’s relationship to the boss could provide to a conflict of interest.

Though this action by the police is questionable, they did not violate Lennie’s rights. When Lenny gave George the details, he freely surrendered the information. The police did nothing to coerce Lenny to admit his guilt, and for this reason, the taped confession would be allowable as evidence. Because a conversation between two friends is not Privelaged Information, it can be argued that Lenny waived his, Right to remain silent, the second he began to admit his guilt to his friend.

You are leaving out an important detail. You state the police will only allow George to talk to Lennie, if an officer can stay in the room and record their conversation. Now to me, that implies that Lennie knows the officer is in the room and recording the conversation. Therefore no violation takes place. Even if no recording took place, the conversation overheard by the officer would be admissible.

If, for some reason, Lennie does not know the officer is in the room (hiding in a dark corner?), Miranda might apply. However, nothing prevents the prosecution from making George testify about what Lennie said. No lawyer/client privilege exists for their conversation.

You should do your own homework and not cheat by asking the question here.

Lenny is in custody, and did ask for a lawyer. The police essentially asked George to do their job.

By taking the taping device under those circumstances, George is now acting as an agent of the police. As soon as the police asked George to wear the recorder, it became a Miranda issue. The recorded confession will not be admitted.

If George taped it on his own, without the police requesting him, One Party Consent laws apply, and the tape would be admissible.

Nope, the admission wasn’t a result of the interrogation, and therefore Miranda is invalid. There’s no expectation to privacy, there’s also no exception for their conversation.

Good admission, no Miranda violation.

Is Lennie the character from the novel Of Mice and Men? Seems like if he observed someone in the room who he did not know, he’d be smart enough not to talk about killing someone. Anyway, if this occurred in the visitor area, the courts have already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in that situation since it is a public area.