Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
Eric Cartman was angry. He was angry at his friends, his parents, his teachers; he was angry at the world. But then he was always acting angry. Eric was interested in guns, bombs, war, and other types of violence. He often claimed anyone could build a bomb, it was easy with the internet. One day Dean Hanky of South Park University (SPU) received an anonymous call that there was a bomb on campus. Dean Hanky was concerned because the bomb could be in a dorm, a classroom building, or anywhere else. Could they find it or evacuate in time? He immediately called the local police. He told the police he did not have any information on the caller, but he suspected Eric Cartman. The police arrived and as part of their response they grabbed Cartman out of class, placed him in handcuffs, took him to the station, and questioned him. Pressed for time, they chose not to read him his rights. They kept telling him they knew it was him and demanded he tell them where the bomb was. For the first time in his life, Cartman felt intimidated. After some time had passed, he told the police he had made the call, but there was no bomb. He was just angry and wanted to disrupt things. In Cartman’s trial, could the prosecution use his statement to police? Could he successfully challenge its admission? What about false confession?
Sample Answer
Title: The Admissibility of Eric Cartman’s Statement to Police and the Potential Challenges
Introduction:
The case of Eric Cartman, who made a false bomb threat to South Park University, raises questions regarding the admissibility of his statement to the police and the potential challenges that could arise during his trial. This essay will explore whether Cartman’s statement can be used by the prosecution and analyze the possible grounds for challenging its admission, particularly in relation to false confessions.
Admissibility of Cartman’s Statement:
Under normal circumstances, the prosecution would seek to admit Cartman’s statement as evidence during his trial. However, several factors need to be considered in determining its admissibility, including the circumstances under which the statement was obtained and whether Cartman’s rights were violated.
Challenging the Admission – Failure to Read Miranda Rights:
One possible challenge to the admission of Cartman’s statement is the failure of the police to read him his Miranda rights. The Miranda warning is a legal requirement in the United States that informs individuals of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If Cartman’s rights were not properly read to him, his statement may be deemed inadmissible.
Challenging the Admission – Coercion and Intimidation:
Another potential challenge could stem from the police’s methods of questioning, which may have involved coercion or intimidation. If it can be demonstrated that Cartman’s statement was obtained through undue pressure or threats, it could be argued that his confession was involuntary. In such cases, courts typically consider whether the individual’s will was overborne and whether they made the statement freely and voluntarily.
False Confession and Challenging the Admission:
Cartman’s admission that he made a false bomb threat raises concerns about the reliability of his statement. False confessions can occur for various reasons, including coercion, fear, or mental health issues. If Cartman’s defense can establish that the confession was false, it may further challenge the admissibility of his statement. Courts generally consider factors such as age, mental capacity, and the length and circumstances of the interrogation when evaluating the validity of a confession.
Conclusion:
In Eric Cartman’s trial for making a false bomb threat, the admissibility of his statement to the police will likely be a point of contention. Challenges could arise based on the failure to read him his Miranda rights, allegations of coercion or intimidation during questioning, and the potential for a false confession. Ultimately, it will be up to the court to determine whether Cartman’s statement can be admitted as evidence, taking into account the circumstances surrounding its acquisition and its reliability.
