A mechanic and his former employee were indicted for automobile theft. Unbeknownst to the mechanic, the former employee confessed to the crime and implicated his employer. In exchange for favorable treatment by the prosecutor, the former employee agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of the mechanic. The police were also investigating the mechanic for an alleged plan to kill another person who was to serve as a witness for the state at the mechanic's trial. The mechanic sought a meeting with the former employee. Upon learning of the proposed meeting, the police wired the former employee in order to record the conversation between the mechanic and the former employee. The police directed the former employee to encourage the mechanic to talk about his criminal activity. At the meeting the mechanic made incriminating statements about stealing automobiles. The mechanic's lawyer filed a pretrial motion to suppress these statements on the grounds that his client's right to counsel was violated. Should the court grant this motion?

A. No, because the statements were obtained by police during an investigation of a possible crime, a plan to murder a witness, for which the right to counsel had not attached.

B. No, because the mechanic initiated the meeting with his former employee.

C. Yes, because the police knowingly used the former employee to elicit incriminating statements from the mechanic about the charged crime.

D. Yes, because the police used a secret agent to obtain the incriminating statements.

another answer from our community: let us first explain the meaning of "eternal truth" which is tomean, continuing forever or indefinitely. this being the case itcannot be changed, for truth is truth no matter what changes aremade to the structure of its explanation. however, as for religeons changin… (more)

the secretary of state, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, is the president's chief foreign affairs adviser. the secretary carries out the president's foreign policies through the state department and the foreign service of the united states.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.