Law Criminal Procedure Quiz 3 - Confessions Unit

Miranda v. AZ Bkg

• Miranda never told of right to counsel + remain silent

• Signed rape confession

• Convicted + sentenced; appealed

Miranda v. AZ [1966]

SC ruling which

• Interprets 5th amendment right to protect against self-incrimination VERY broadly

• Incl. that the right vs. self-incrim. requires gov. to tell suspects constitutional rights while in CUSTODIAL interrogation

SC ruling stating

• Suspects must be read their rights EVERYTIME (even if they’ve been thru the process before) if BOTH

  1. In custody

  2. Being interrogated

• Must be told → protect vs. self-incrimination

  • Right to remain silent

  • Right to attny.

Waiver of Miranda

• Suspects can WAIVE rights + submit to police interrogation AS LONG AS made

  1. Knowingly

  2. Intelligently

  3. Voluntarily

Can suspects stop PO interrogation? If so, how?

YES, by either/or

1. Telling PO they don’t want to answer more questions

2. Calling for their lawyer’s presence

   • Interrogation can’t restart until lawyer comes

Can PO restart interrogation AFTER suspect invokes right to remain silent?

NO, need to be either/or

• Re-mirandized

• Asked to formally waive rights

What cases followed Miranda aftermath’s path?

• Berkemer v. McCarty

• Rhode Island v. Innis

• New York v. Quarles

• Moran v. Burbine

• Berghuis v. Thompkins

Berkemer v. McCarty [1984]

• SC case involving question of giving Miranda warnings B4 traffic stop questioning

• SC ruling using totality of circumstances to rule questioning during traffic stops = NOT custodial

• SC case defining custody as

  • A situation where a person’s freedom of action = restricted to a similar degree as formal arrest

    • A reasonable person wouldn’t feel free to leave (Katz standard)

Rhode Island v. Innis [1980]

• SC case involving

  • Convo b/w PO about potential danger of missing shotgun in suspect suspected crime to children → suspect blurt + guidance to skl

  • Officer investigation in patrol car = “interrogation” violating protect vs. self-incrim. rights?

• SC ruling that

  • Interrogation INCL. “words or actions” reasonably likely to provoke incriminating response

  • Spontaneous statements (“blurts”) made in custody = ADMISSIBLE in court

    • Even if Miranda warnings r given OR lawyer is there

Background of NY vs. Quarles

• Woman approaches PO telling them she’s been raped

  • Desc. to PO + says he’s carrying a gun

• Tells them suspect → supermarket

• PO finds guy matching desc. → guy starts running, PO catch him

• PO start frisking

  • B/c reliable witness gave desc. → reasonable suspicion (Terry v. Ohio)

• PO feels holster, asks “where’s the gun?”

• PO mirandizes AFTER finding gun

NY v. Quarles [1984]

• SC case involving rape suspect w/ gun + frisk question → exclusion of evidence b/c no Mirandizing before → 5th amendment right violation?

• SC ruling that

  • Need for answers in public safety threat situation > need for precautionary Miranda rules

  • Made Public Safety exception

    • PO can ask questions reasonably caused by IMMEDIATE concern for pub. safety, depending on URGENCY of threat

Moran v. Burbine [1986]

• SC ruling that

  1. Miranda doesn’t require states to tell suspect of their lawyer’s presence

  2. Waiver of Miranda = valid if ALL of the following are met; suspect =

     1. Uncoerced (voluntary)

     2. Knew their rights (of silence + lawyer)

     3. Knew the state’s intention to use statements to get a conviction

  3. Attny. can’t invoke 6th amendment’s right to counsel FOR a client

     • It is a PERSONAL right that SUSPECT needs to say

Berghuis (a.k.a Michigan) v. Thompkins Background

• Guy involved in shooting outside strip mall had fled + caught in Ohio 1 yr later

• 2 PO from MI came to interview him

• Thompkins fully well + in stable state of mind/body + police never threatened

• At start of interview, given form drawing from Miranda Rights + asked him to sign → Thompkins refused

• Conflicting evid. about verbal question of comprehension of rights + affirmation by Thompson (detective o.g said “yes”, then later in trial, doubted it) → blurry

• Thompkins never EXPLICITLY invoked any of his rights, js sat in SILENCE for 2 hrs and 45 min

• PO asked question “Do you believe in God” → led to something like a confession → charged

Berghuis (a.k.a Michigan) v. Thompkins [2010]

(consider adding arguments)

• SC case involving silence = invocation of right to remain silent during custodial interrogation?

• SC ruling that

  • Knowingly + voluntarily responding to PO interrogation after remaining silent = waiver of right 2 remain silent → Thompkins impliedly waived his rights

    • Given prev. Miranda warnings/comprehension

  • KEY: Defendants MUST make UNAMBIGUOUS assertion of right 2 stay silent → invoke right + stop custodial interrogation

JDB v. North Carolina [2011]

• SC case involving middle skler being pulled out of class to talk to PO + be interrogated W/O Miranda rights reading

• SC case ruling that

  • Deemed 5th amendment protection vs. self-incrimination REQUIRES young suspect’s age to be considered when seeing if they’re in “custody” for purposes of Miranda warning

  • Deemed child’s age = critical facter in deciding whether a RP in their position would feel free to leave

What DOES Miranda prohibit?

1. Physical + psychological coercion

2. Cont. interrogation after suspect makes clear, unmistakable request to either or

   • Remain silent

   • Get lawyer

3. Stop-and-start interrogation

Stop-and-start Interrogation

• Where officers interrogate + get confession b4 reading suspect Miranda rights, stops for a bit, then restarts interrogation on CAMERA to get suspect to repeat confession after rights reading

  • suspect feels like they alr confessed → no pt in staying silent

What DOESN’T Miranda prohibit?

1. VOLUNTARY confessions AFTER Miranda rights waiver

2. Spontaneous statements (“blurts”)

   • EVEN IF Miranda warnings haven’t been given yet

3. Questioning during routine traffic stops (b/c = non-custodial)

4. Public safety exception

5. Cont. interrogation if suspect makes UNCLEAR assertion of either, or

   • Right to remain silent (+ maintaining)

   • Ambiguous ask for lawyer

Exclusionary Rule

• Judicially-created law doctrine blocking gov. from using evid. gotten in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights in criminal trials

• Extends 2 5th + 6th amendments too

• NOT a distinct personal right

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

• Legal doctrine derived from + extends the Exclusionary Rule

• Metaphor: If tree = poisoned (illegal), fruit ALSO = tainted + gen. inadmissible in a criminal trial

Utah v. Streiff [2016]

Attenuation doctrine