1. That was an unlawful confession as Dan had reason to believe that his confession was confidential and he was speaking to his Lawyer when he was presented to him. The suspect was given false information that led him to make an unlawful confession and give up his constitutional rights. Dan can successfully and rightfully remove the statement he gave to Sid because the 6th Amendment allows the right to a fair trial and a lawyer who can defend him. He believed that he was in a secure area... Even with that statement, the officer would get a self-defense statement because he was in constant fear for his life. By doing this, the officer violated Dan's right to self-incrimination as well because he falsely identified himself which was beyond his reason.

reply to the comment above. give a long response

2. Dan's Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel is a crucial aspect of the United States Constitution, which provides the accused with the right to have the assistance of counsel for their defense. Any coercion to reveal incriminating information, such as what Sid did to Dan, is strictly prohibited. Sid posed as a rival gang member and falsely promised Dan protection and a superior lawyer, which led to Dan disclosing incriminating information that was used against him in court.

It's essential to remember that in the scenairo above this incident happened after Dan's arraignment, which means that the government had to either have Dan's lawyer present or waive his right to counsel to initiate questioning. By deceiving Dan, Sid violated Dan's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and his statement should be excluded from the trial.

Moreover, Dan's Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination was also violated. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves in criminal cases. Since Dan's statement was obtained through deception, it is inadmissible in court.

The government must prove that the statement is admissible by a majority of the evidence to satisfy the burden of proof. However, the evidence obtained from Dan is now useless and cannot be used against him in court. Therefore, Dan's rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution must be respected and upheld. His statement to Sid must be excluded from the trial to ensure a fair and just outcome since Dan's Sixth Amendment was violated as well as his Fifth Amendment.

reply to this comment above give a long response.

Below is the scenario

Dan's neighborhood was overrun by two gangs: the Reds and the Blues. Vic, one of the Reds, tried to recruit Dan to join his gang. When Dan refused, Vic said he couldn't be responsible for Dan's safety.

After threatening Dan for several weeks, Vic backed Dan into an alley, showed him a knife, and said: "Think carefully about your decision. Your deadline is coming fast." Dan was terrified. He began carrying a gun for protection. A week later, Dan saw Vic walking with his hand under his jacket. Afraid that Vic might be about to stab him, Dan shot and killed Vic.

Dan was arrested and put in jail. After his arraignment on a charge of murder, an attorney was appointed for him by the court. Dan then received a visitor who identified himself as Sid, a member of the Blues. Sid said the Blues wanted to help Dan and had hired him a better lawyer. Sid said the lawyer wanted Dan to tell Sid exactly how the killing had occurred so the lawyer could help Dan. Dan told Sid that he had shot Vic to end the harassment. Dan later learned that Sid was actually a police informant, who had been instructed beforehand by the police to try to get information from Dan.

May Dan successfully move to exclude his statement to Sid under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Discuss.