Interview/Interrogation Court Cases

Wilson v. U.S.

held that the voluntariness of a confession is a question of fact for the jury to decide

Bram v. U.S.

held that a confession obtained through psychological coercion violated the 5th

Massiah v. U.S.

held that once criminal proceedings begin, any deliberate elicitation of info by government agents without the presence of the defendants attorney violates the 6th

Frazier v. Cupp

held that deception by the police did not make a confession involuntary

Brewer v. Williams

the defendants 6th amendment rights has been violated when police knowingly elicited incriminating statements after proceedings has begun

Oregon v. Mathiason

held that Miranda is only required when the suspect is in custody

Rhode Island v. Innis

held that indirect police convos are not interrogation under Miranda unless they are reasonably likely to elicit a response

Edwards v. Arizona

held that once a suspect invokes their right to counsel, police cannot reinitiate questioning without an attorney present

Oregon v. Elstad

held that a voluntary confession made after Miranda warnings is admissible even if preceded by an earlier unwarned confession

State v. Cayward

held that fabricating documents for use during interrogation was improper and violated due process

Illinois v. Perkins

held that Miranda warnings are unnecessary when a suspect unknowingly confesses to an undercover agent

State of Maine v. Dodge

held that a confession obtained after deceptive police tactics were deemed coercive and likely to overbear the suspect’s will

State of Maine v. Nightingale

held that a confession had to be suppressed a confession due to a Miranda violation during custodial interrogation due to being in custody

Commonwealth v. Baye

held that the use of social media evidence to establish intent and recklessness in a vehicular homicide case