Apply what you have learned about criminal procedure and due process to each of the 4 scenarios below. Describe what facts and what law would support your position.

1. Frank, an undercover cop, is at Drew's house watching a football game. Drew is an illegal arms dealer. Frank has spent months establishing his cover and Drew believes him to be just another street thug with connections to people with money. When the game is over Frank leaps from his chair and yells "I'm not lettin' you outta here until you tell me who supplies you with your guns!" Drew gets scared and tells Frank everything he knows. Frank then tell Drew that he's a cop and arrests Drew. Can Drew's extrajudicial confession be used against him in a court of law?

2. David is arrested for real estate fraud and is properly Mirandized. After several minutes of questioning David says "I don't want to talk to you guys any more. I got the right to remain silent," and makes a gesture of closing a zipper on his mouth. He is brought to the general holding cell and left there for about one hour. David is then brought back to the interrogation room, given his Miranda warnings again, and asked about the recent theft of some rare guitars. He answers the first few questions, telling police where he hid the stolen instruments. Then, as if suddenly realizing that he had asserted his right to remain silent, he makes the zipper gesture once again and falls silent. Can his responses regarding the location of the guitars be used against him at trial?

3. David is arrested for real estate fraud and is properly Mirandized. After several minutes of questioning David says "I don't want to talk to you guys any more. I got the right to remain silent," and makes a gesture of closing a zipper on his mouth. He is brought to the general holding cell and left there for about one hour. David is then brought back to the interrogation room, given his Miranda warnings again, and asked about the recent theft of some rare guitars. He answers the first few questions, telling police where he hid the stolen instruments. Then, as if suddenly realizing that he had asserted his right to remain silent, he makes the zipper gesture once again and falls silent. When David asserts his right to remain silent regarding the guitar case, he opened his mouth again to say "And I'm not answering any more questions about those damn guitars until my lawyer gets here." Unfortunately, David's lawyer is taking his afternoon nap and cannot get there anytime soon. He is put back in the holding cell, and two hours later he is once again brought to the now-familiar interrogation room. He is truthfully informed that his lawyer won't be able to get there for another few hours and he is given his Miranda warnings yet again. His questioners then point out that if he cooperates he might be able to get himself out before his lawyer even gets there, and then ask him some questions about a hit-and-run case involving a car matching the description of his Toyota. He refuses to answer the first few questions but finally blurts out in response "Yeah, that was my car, but I drink a lot and I don't remember anything like that happening. I just woke up one morning and found the dents and blood." Can this statement be used against David in his trial?

4. Simple Simon is taken into custody and brought to the police station for questioning. Officer E. M. Pethy gives Simon the following warning in lieu of reading the usual Miranda statement prepared by the District Attorney's office: "You don't have to talk to us and you don't have to say anything you don't want to say, Simon. You can wait until your lawyer gets here and stay quiet until then. But if you do feel like saying something, remember it could hurt you in court, because we could use it against you." Simon says "I want to tell you everything. I touched them. I touched their heads, and I touched their hips." Can the statement be used against Simon in his trial?