◆ SpookStack

conversation with police, Shea v. Louisiana held that the Edwards rule applies retroactively to cases on direct appeal when Edwards was decided, 3. Oregon v. Eistad, 105 S.Ct. 1285 (3-4-85) The Supreme Court ruled that a confession obtained by police after giving the Miranda warnings and obtaining a valid waiver, Wage nar automatically teaintad by the facet that they had earlier secured an initial admission without first advising the suspect of his Miranda rights. The Elstad case recognized the Miranda warnings as only a judicially created safeguard to the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled seif~-incrimination, but not in themselves of constitutional dimension. Thus, so long as the initial admission was not coerced, a second admission preceded by the advice and waiver of Miranda rights may be admitted into evidence, 4, Tennessee v. Street, 105 §.Ct. 2078 (5-13-85) The Sixth Amendment*s Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a non-testifying accomplices confession at a sole defendant”s trial where that confession is offered on rebuttal for the limited purpose of showing that the defendant”s own confession was not coerced, E. Right to Counsel v 1, Evitts v. Lucey, 105 S.Ct. 830 (1-21-85) The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guatantees a criminal defendant the effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right following his conviction. F, Search of Premises i. Thompson v. Louisiana, 105 S.Ct. 409 (11+26-84) In Thompson, the Supreme Courr held that a warrantless 2~hour search of a murder scene after the victim and suspect were removed violated the Fourth Awendment. The Court reiterated that there is no “murder scene" exception to the warrant requirement, Law enforcement officers may make emergency warrantless entries when necessary to locate victims and suspects and to render assistance and any evidence found in plain view during that entry may be seized, Once the emergency function has been fulfilled, any further search must he conducted pursuant to a search warrant or consent. In Macon, the Court held that an undercover purchase at a public adult bookstore did not constitute a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 4