Accоrding tо APA's Anаtоmy of а Journаl Article infographic, in a peer-reviewed research article, the Discussion:
The pоlice suspected thаt Art wаs invоlved in а series оf robberies. So, Officer Johnson showed up at Art’s front door one morning. Art indicated that he would rather speak to the officer somewhere else because he did not want his wife to overhear them. So, they drove to the police station together. Art signed into the station as a visitor. He was told by Officer Johnson that he could terminate the conversation any time he wanted and would be returned to his home. Over a 90 minute period, in a small room, Officer Johnson’s questions increasingly focused on Art’s “whereabouts” at the time when each of the robberies took place. At one point in the conversation Officer Johnson shouted that “any prosecutor worth his sault could drive a truck through your memory lapses.” Art then responded that while he might have been present at one of the robberies, he “wasn’t involved in taking any of the money.” The conversation ended shortly thereafter and Art was returned home. The following day Officer Johnson served Art with an arrest warrant and took him to the police station. Miranda rights were read to Art for the first time, and he was given a copy of the Miranda warnings to read. He was then questioned for an hour, during which he made several explicit, inculpatory statements which confirmed his conversation with Officer Johnson the day before. During Art’s first court appearance the next day, formal charges were filed against him for robbery and counsel was appointed. Art was then placed in a cell with Ben. Unknown to Art his cellmate was a police informant. Ben immediately began to probe Art concerning the reason for his incarceration. Art responded “I think they have nailed me on robbery.” Two days later, a convenience store clerk victimized by one of the robberies eight months earlier, arrived at the police station and was asked to go through a photographic identification book. The clerk had earlier reported to Officer Johnson that Art stood about eight feet away from the counter while the other robber emptied the cash register. He reported that the one thing he remembered was that one of the robbers wore glasses. The clerk selected a picture of Art as the perpetrator of the robbery. None of the other photos in the book depicted suspects who wore glasses. Art did wear glasses. Discuss all legal issues relating to (a) the initial questioning of Art at the police station; (b) the admissibility of Art’s statement from the second questioning of Art at the police station; (c) the admissibility of Art’s statement to Ben; & (d) the admissibility of the photo identification by the clerk. Do not discuss the right to counsel with respect to question (d).