Confessions- 5th, 6th, & 14th Amendment

Confessions: Basis for Suppression

-14th Amendment Voluntariness Test (Due Process)
-6th Amendment Right to Counsel
-5th Amendment Miranda Rights

Purpose of Voluntariness Test

-Obtain reliable confessions
-Deter abusive police practices
-Shows free will of Defendant

Voluntariness Test: Totality of Circumstances

1.) Defendant's Characteristics
2.) Police Conduct

Defendant's Characteristics: Voluntariness Test

Age, Education, Prior Criminal Experience, Physical/Mental Condition

Police Conduct: Voluntariness Test

Violence, Threats, Promises, Length of Interrogation, & Deception.

Gatekeeper Requirement (Connelly)

Must show some coercive conduct on the part of the police in order to get to the Totality of the Circumstances test

McNabb-Mallory Rule

Places a 6 hour limit between arrest and the first court appearance. A violation makes confessions made after the six hour period inadmissible under 14th Amendment.

6th Amendment Elicit Rule (Massiah)

violation of 6th Amendment when government agents, whether undercover or not, deliberately try to elicit a confession from a defendant who has no lawyer present.

6th Amendment: Escobedo Investigations

Holding that 6th Amendment has been violated when investigation turns from general to specific:

-Focuses on a particular suspect;
-Police Interrogate;
-Counsel has been denied; AND
-No warning of right to remain silent

NOTE: NO LONGER GOOD LAW

Four Miranda Rights

1.) Right to Remain Silent
2.) Anything you say can be used against you in court
3.) Right to an attorney
4.) Appointed attorney if indigent

Why is Escobedo no longer good law?

Escobedo was decided earlier than Rothgery (2008). Can no longer be good law because adversarial judicial proceedings have not begun.

What triggers Miranda Rights?

To trigger Miranda Rights there must be:
-Custody;
-Interrogation;
-Interplay between custody and interrogation; AND
-No public safety exception

Is Miranda a Constitutional Rule?

Yes, Miranda is a constitutional decision that Congress may not overrule per the Court in Dickerson.

Why? Intended to protect defendant's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination

Custody Defined (Miranda)

Being taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

Custody: Objective Analysis (JDB)

Would a reasonable person in the suspect's position feel free to end questioning and leave?

JDB & Child Custody Under Miranda

Holding a child's age is relevant to Miranda Analysis; Officer knew or should have known person was underage.

Custody: Totality of Circumstances Test (Howes)

1.) Pre-Interrogation
-Did suspect go willingly?

2.) Interrogation
-Length
-Location
-Restraints
-Was suspect told they are free to leave?
-Number of officers

3.) Post-interrogation
-Were you arrested or released?

4.) Reasonable person would not feel free to end questioning and leave.

Interrogation Test (Innis)

Interrogation occurs when there is:
-Express questioning; OR
-Its functional equivalent

NOTE: Suspect's perception is the point of view

What is the functional equivalent of express questioning?

Any words/actions police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Exceptions to functional equivalent rule

Questions that are attendant to arrest and custody.

Mere Possibility Rule (Arizona v. Mauro)

Police knowledge that there was a mere possibility someone would incriminate themselves is not enough to constitute interrogation.

EVEN intention or hope of eliciting a response is not enough. It must be reasonably likely to elicit a response.

Presenting Evidence Against Defendant (Vallor)

Presenting a defendant with evidence against them does not constitute interrogation.

Volunteered Statements & Interrogation (Mauro)

A suspect's volunteered statements cannot be considered the result of police interrogation when they have not been subjected to compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning.

Interplay Rule (Illinois v. Perkins)

In order to trigger Miranda, a suspect must be aware they are speaking to a government agent.

Miranda warnings are not required when suspect is unaware that he is speaking to a law enforcement agent and gives a voluntary statement.

Public Safety Exception (Quarles)

A public safety exception exists when:

-Questions are reasonably prompted by concern for public safety.
**Even if the individual officer had an ulterior motivation to find incriminating evidence.

Is imminence required for the public safety exception?

right now there is no imminence requirement for the public safety exception but there is a circuit split among the lower courts surrounding the issue

Waiving Miranda Rights: Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is heavy on the state because:

1.) Police create the isolating nature of interrogation
2.) Police have means of corroborating what happened in the interrogation room.

Rule for Waiving Miranda Rights

A waiver of Miranda Rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

A waiver of Miranda CANNOT be inferred from:

1.) Silence/Failure to invoke
2.) Confession
3.) Police threatening, tricking, or cajoling a waiver

NOTE: Trickery or threat must be about the Miranda Rights

"Free Flow of Information" Rule (Colorado v. Spring)

A suspect does not need to know what police will ask them about to validly waive their Miranda Rights.

**Police are not required to give a free flow of information to help a suspect calculate what is in his best interest.

Waiver: Totality of Circumstances Test

To see if there was a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver we look at the:

1.) Defendant's characteristics; AND
2.) Officer's conduct

NOTE: This is the same as the voluntariness test

Waiver & Attorneys (Moran v. Burbine)

A suspect not being made aware of a public defender does not affect the validity of their Miranda Rights waiver.

Why? Because Miranda is designed to protect the suspect, not the information given to attorneys.

Two Types of Waivers

1.) Express
2.) Implied

Implied Waiver Test

An implied waiver is determined by the:
1.) Suspect's understanding of rights.
2.) Suspect's course of conduct indicating waiver.
3.) Uncoerced

Invocation & Right to Remain Silent (Mosley)

When a defendant invokes the right to remain silent, police must scrupulously honor that right.

What does it mean to scrupulously honor right to remain silent?

-Police immediately ended interrogation
-There was a "significant" lapse in time (2 hours; Sometimes less)
-Suspect was re-mirandized
-Suspect asked about different crime (not always necessary; circuit split)

Invoking Counsel (Edwards & Roberson)

Edwards: Once a suspect has invoked right to counsel, he may not be subjected to further interrogation until counsel is present.

Roberson: Also, once right to counsel has been invoked police cannot initiate interrogation about any other crime unless counsel is present.

Invocation Pitfalls (Apply Traditionally to Counsel, but also to Silence)

1.) Break in Custody
2.) Suspect Initiates Conversation
3.) Unambiguous Invocation

Break in Custody (Shatzer)

Invocation of right to counsel ends after 14 days, then a suspect can be re-mirandized and must invoke right to counsel again.

Initiating Conversation (Bradshaw)

When a suspect indicates a willingness to discuss generally the investigation, invocation is no longer relevant and police may interrogate.

NOTE: This does not apply to conversations that are routine incidents of custody.

Unambiguous Invocation (Davis & Thompson)

A suspect must unambiguously invoke right to counsel/silence such that a reasonable officer would know you want a lawyer.

**Police do not need to clarify a suspect's ambiguous statements

Miranda and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (Elstad Rule)

Fruit of the poisonous tree is not applied to a consecutive confession following a first confession obtained without providing miranda warnings.

Elstad Reasoning: FOTPT Doctrine

1.) Miranda violation is not a Constitutional Violation, because Miranda is a prophylactic rule
2.) No Causal Connection
3.) Good-Faith Violation

Physical Evidence FOTPT Rule (Patane)

fruit of the poisonous tree rule only applies to testimonial evidence not physical evidence obtained from testimony in violation of miranda

Patane Reasoning

1.) Miranda is not a constitutional violation
2.) Nontestimonial evidence does not apply
3.) Mere failure to warn; Nothing to deter

**Miranda violations only occur when testimonial evidence is introduced against you

Consecutive Statement & Function Effectively Rule (Seibert)

A consecutive statement is inadmissible when the Miranda warnings did not function effectively (were not adequate).

NOTE: This is distinguished from Elstad; Court says this is not a fruit of the poisonous tree analysis

Seibert: Effectiveness of Miranda Test

1.) No adequate warnings

2.) Causal link exists between first and consecutive statement
-Continuation of previous line of questioning
-Short time period between consecutive confessions

3.) Bad-Faith Violation

Mere Listening: 6th Amendment

Mere listening is not enough for an undercover agent to violate the 6th Amendment; Must deliberately elicit a confession.

Waiver: 6th and 5th Amendment

An accused who has been given adequate Miranda Rights, specifically the right to counsel, can waive the 6th Amendment right to counsel when they waive Miranda Rights.

Exceptions: Burbine applies to 6A, police cannot withold information about an attorney's presence unlike in the 5A

5A vs. 6A: Offense Specific Rule

6th Amendment: Police may not question about offense at hand, but may question about another offense

5th Amendment: Police may not question about any offense

Offense Specific Rule (Texas v. Cobb)

When the 6th amendment is invoked, police may not question about:

-The offense at hand
-Any other offense that would be considered "the same" offense under the Blockburger Test

Blockburger Test

Does each crime require proof of a fact that the other does not?

1.) Does crime A require proof of fact that crime B does not?
2.) Does crime B require proof of fact that crime A does not?

NOTE: The crimes are different offenses ONLY IF the answer to both questions are yes.

NOTE: If the crimes are considered different offenses, even though they arise out of the same set of facts, the police can question.

Montejo Waiver of 5A and 6A

Even when a lawyer has been appointed under the 6th Amendment, a 5th Amendment waiver will also result in the 6th Amendment being waived.

Three instances in which the Blockburger Test would still apply

1.) No 5th Amendment Custody (Miranda Not Applicable)
2.) Burbine Exception
3.) Undercover Agent (Miranda Not Applicable)

Deliberate elicitation other crimes

statements obtained through deliberate elicitation by undercover agents regarding other offenses that the defendant has not attached the 6th amendment right to are admissible in court