Due Process Voluntariness

What is the Due Process Voluntariness Test and who does it apply to?

• Applies to federal government via the 5th Amendment.

• Applies to states via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.

• Still good law and independently suppresses confessions.

• Rule: A statement obtained involuntarily by a law enforcement officer is inadmissible in a defendant’s state criminal trial.

What is the standard for determining voluntariness under the DPV test?

Totality of the Circumstances (TOC) test.

• Examines:

  • The details of the interrogation, and

  • The characteristics of the accused.

• Focus question: Was the suspect’s will overborne by government action?

• Essentially a “mind reading exercise” — was the confession free will or compulsion?

How does Dickerson treat involuntary statements after Miranda?

Involuntariness survives Miranda — still a separate constitutional rule.

• Confessions obtained involuntarily violate fundamental national values:

  • Unreliable (risk of false confessions).

  • Offends due process to convict someone based on coercion.

• Strictest exclusionary rule:

  • Not admissible for any purpose.

  • Even impeachment not allowed.

  • Full fruit of the poisonous tree applies.

Does a Miranda waiver affect voluntariness?

• Yes. If the defendant waived Miranda, that waiver is evidence of voluntariness under DPV.

• BUT!! —> Miranda compliance alone does not automatically make a confession voluntary.

What rule came from Bram, and is it still good law?

• Bram interpreted the 5th Amendment to require that a confession not be obtained by:

  • Any threat,

  • Any violence,

  • Any direct or implied promises, even slight,

  • Or “any improper influence.”

• NO LONGER GOOD LAW, but frequently cited historically for voluntariness concepts.

What are the four primary sources of involuntariness under DPV?

1. Actual or Threatened Force

2. Psychological Pressure / Threats

3. Promises of Leniency / Threats of Harsh Treatment

4. Deception

Explain “Actual or Threatened Force” (Re: Involuntariness)

• Torture

• Gun to the head

• Waterboarding

• Stress positions

• Severe physical discomfort
  (Rare in domestic police work.)

Explain “Psychological Pressure/Threats” (Re: Involuntariness)

• Good cop / bad cop

• Sympathy + manipulation

• “Christian Burial speech” type tactics

• Exploiting personal vulnerabilities
  (A real issue according to Fleissner.)

Explain “Promises of Leniency/Threats of Harsh Treatment” (Re: Involuntariness)

• “I’ll tell the prosecutor to go easy on you.”

• “Your kids could be taken away.”

• “Your wife might be prosecuted.”

• Strongly disfavored; often treated as coercive.

Explain “Deception” (Re: Involuntariness)

• Police deception tolerated by SCOTUS.

• Frazier v. Cupp cited for approval of deception.

• Limits: courts disapprove of creating fake documents.

What does the TOC test actually require courts to evaluate?

• Everything is on the table:

  • Length of interrogation

  • Tactics used

  • Suspect’s age, education, mental condition

  • Promises or threats

  • Isolation or deprivation

• Courts must determine whether the suspect’s will was overborne at the moment of confession.

Miller v. Fenton (Re: Involuntariness)

Issue —> Did psychological pressure and sympathetic interrogation tactics overbear the defendant’s will?

Holding —> Voluntary. Police sympathy, minimizing, and some deception did not overbear the will of this suspect.

Key Takeaway ==> Psychological tactics alone rarely = involuntary.

• Courts look for extreme pressure, especially when suspect remains aware he is being interrogated.

Dissent —>

• Officer’s manipulative tactics should have been coercive.

• Collapse afterward shows suspect’s will was overborne.

Arizona v. Fulminante (Re: Involuntariness)

Issue —> Was the confession involuntary due to credible threat of physical harm if defendant did not confess?

Holding —> Involuntary.

• Informant’s offer of “protection” in prison = credible threat, overbore will.

• Confession admitted at trial = constitutional error, but subject to harmless error review.

Key Takeaways ==> Threat-of-force category of involuntary confessions.

• Harmless error doctrine applies to coerced confessions.

• Confessions are “devastating evidence,” making harmless error tough for state.

Dissent —> No real threat; defendant said he wasn’t scared.

• Majority too quick to find coercion.

Colorado v. Connelly (Re: Involuntariness)

Issue —»  Can a confession be involuntary when coercion stems from mental illness, not police action?

Holding —» State action is required for a Due Process voluntariness violation.

• Internal psychological pressures ≠ coercion.

• Voice of God compelling confession = no police coercion → no DP violation.

Key Takeaways ==> Mental illness alone ≠ involuntariness.

• DP Voluntariness test is about government misconduct, not defendant’s internal state.

• Reliability concerns go to evidence law, not Due Process.

Dissent —> Confession clearly not product of free will.

• Reliability should matter; confession should be excluded.