Chapter 8 Interrogations and Confessions. Due Process Fourteenth Amendment due process voluntariness test state courts Brown v. Mississippi Ashcraft.

Chapter 8Interrogations and Confessions

Due ProcessFourteenth Amendment due process voluntariness teststate courtsBrown v. MississippiAshcraft v. Tennesseefundamental fairnesspolice methodsinvoluntary confessions

Due Process (cont.)four purposes of voluntariness testtrustworthyfundamental fairnessoffensive police methodsfree will and rational choicevoluntarinesspolice cannot subject the suspect to physical or psychological coercionwhich overcomes the suspects will to resisttotality of the circumstances

Legal Equations

McNabb-Mallory Rulepolice concern that the Court failed to establish solid guidelines McNabb v. United States existing congressional statutes explicitly required federal officers to immediately bring arrestees before a magistrate or judge and demonstrate a legal justification for the arrestthe bright-line rule that confessions obtained in violation of this rule were inadmissible in federal court failed to make a significant impact on police practices

McNabb-Mallory (cont.)Mallory v. United States: the police may not arrest and interrogate a defendant and then decide whether there is probable cause to charge him/her with a crimerule focuses on the length of delay between an arrest and a suspects initial appearance before a magistrateOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ( 3501)courts generally consider unreasonable delay to be one of several factors to be considered in evaluating the voluntariness of a defendants confessionthe U.S. Supreme Court has now clarified that 3501 is not required to be followed by the U.S. Constitution and is not applicable to the states

Escobedo v. IllinoisJustice William Douglas, Spano v. New YorkEscobedo v. Illinoisextended the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer established in Massiah to the period prior to indictment this was the point in which most confessions were elicited, and a failure to provide access to an attorney at this stage would render legal representation at trial meaninglessany competent lawyer would undoubtedly instruct his/her client not to talk to the police

Right Against Self-IncriminationMalloy v. Hogan: the Fifth Amendments prohibition on compulsory self-incrimination was incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and is applicable against the statesthe privilege against self-incrimination is violated only when the incriminating information is used against an individual in a legal proceedingthe requirement that one may not be compelled to be a witness against ones self is satisfied when required to answer questions asked by the governmentDoe v. United States

Legal Equation

Miranda v. Arizonaabsent a three-part Miranda warning that the inherently coercive pressures of police interrogation overwhelm individuals capacity to exercise their right against self-incrimination and that no confession given under these conditions can truly be the product of a suspects free choiceindividuals held in detention were isolated from friends, family, and lawyers in unfamiliar surroundingspolice manuals instructed officers to engage in tactics such as displaying confidence in a suspects guilt, minimizing the seriousness of the offense, wearing down individuals through continuous interrogation, and using a good cop/bad cop interrogation technique

Legal Equation

Custodial Interrogationquestioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant wayBeckwith v. United States: a focus by law enforcement on an individual is not sufficient to require the reading of the Miranda rightsMiranda warnings need not be given to an individual who voluntarily enters a police station and wishes to confess to a crime or to a person who voluntarily calls the police to offer a confession or other statementobjective test for custodial interrogation, totality of the circumstancescustody is based on whether, in the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that he or she is subjected to formal arrest or to police custody to a degree associated with a formal arrest

Legal Equations

Public Safety Exceptiona narrow exception that requires questions to be directed to public safety rather than to guilt or innocenceNew York v. Quarles: four stepsreasonablenessthreatquestionscoercion

Legal Equation

Miranda Warningsthe police must inform individuals of the right to remain silence, that anything they say may be used against them, and of their right to an attorney, retained or appointedthe warnings convey the the essential information to the suspect, not necessarily with the exact words outlined in Miranda

Legal Equation

Invoking MirandaDavis v. United States: an individual intending to assert his/her right to have counsel present must articulate this sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorneysuspects invoking their right to silence must do so in a clear and unambiguous fashion

Legal Equation

Waiving Miranda the government is required to meet a heavy burden in demonstrating that a suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his or her rightsMoran v. Burbinevoluntaryknowing and intelligenttotality of the circumstancespredominance of the evidencetotality of the circumstancesexpress and implied waver

Legal Equation

Question First and Warn LaterElstad v. Oregonthe unlawful character of a suspects first voluntary confession does not automatically taint a second voluntary confessiona suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warningsthe Miranda warnings cured the taint of the initial confession warning a suspect that the suspects first confession was inadmissible is neither practicable nor constitutionally necessaryMissouri v. Seibert: when using the question first and warn later technique, it must be clear to the suspect that any pre-warning statements would be inadmissible in court

Legal Equation

Waiver of Miranda Following InvocationMichigan v. Mosleythe legal test for whether a statement obtained after a person in custody decides to remain silent depends on whether his or her right to silence was scrupulously honoredthe critical consideration is whether the police respected the suspects right to cut off questioningEdwards v. Arizona: initiation testArizona v. Roberson: police cannot from reinterrogate a suspect about a different crime

Legal Equations

Interrogation Rhode Island v. Innis interrogation involves either express questioning or the functional equivalent of direct questioning

Right to Counsel: Interrogationssupplements the due process voluntariness and Fifth Amendment Miranda protectionsinsures that the criminal justice process functions in a fair fashionRothergy v. Gillepsie County: the Sixth Amendment right attaches at a criminal defendants initial appearance before a judicial officerBrewer v. Williams: custodial interrogations need not be conducted with questions but can be conducted with any statements deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information

Right to Counsel: Interrogations (cont.)United States v. Henry: the Sixth Amendment provided protections to prison inmates facing trial against unknowing interrogations by undercover government agentsKuhlmann v. Wilsonthe Sixth Amendment is not violated when the government through luck or happenstance obtains incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attachedthe defendant must demonstrate that the police and the informant did not merely listen but took some action that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks

Legal Equation

*****************************