Study Notes on the Fifth Amendment and Confessions

Chapter 7: Confessions and the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment

  • Provisions & Prohibitions of the Fifth Amendment:

    • Grand jury system

    • Double jeopardy

    • Self-incrimination

    • Due process

    • Impressment of private property

Double Jeopardy

  • Definition: Protects American citizens in several key ways:

    1. Prevents a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal.

    2. Prevents a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction.

    3. Prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.

  • Conditions:

    • Does NOT attach in cases lacking finality (e.g., mistrial).

    • Does NOT apply in cases where there is a successful post-conviction appeal.

    • Separate Sovereigns Exception: Different jurisdictions (state and federal) may both pursue charges for the same offense without violating double jeopardy.

Self-Incrimination

  • Key Concept: The right against self-incrimination allows individuals to refuse to testify against themselves.

  • Landmark Cases:

    • Bram v. U.S. (1897): First case to recognize that individuals are protected from compulsory testimony.

    • Adamson v. California (1947): The court ruled that the Fifth Amendment protections do not extend to state trials, and the state can comment on the defendant’s silence.

    • Malloy v. Hogan (1964): Overturned Adamson, extending the Fifth Amendment’s protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

  • Overview: A compilation of four cases that led to the establishment of a framework for custodial interrogations.

  • Rule Established:

    • No statement (either inculpatory or exculpatory) may be admitted if it is obtained during a custodial interrogation without proper advisement of rights.

    • Sequential interrogations do not necessitate repetitive Miranda warnings to the suspect.

Four Cautionary Advisements within Miranda

  1. The right to remain silent.

  2. Anything said may be used against them in court.

  3. The right to an attorney.

  4. Appointment of an attorney in indigent cases.

Evolution of Miranda

  • Key Development:

    • “Bright Line Rule” established in Edwards v. Arizona (1981): All interrogation must cease until counsel is provided unless the suspect initiates contact with authorities.

    • The aim is to prevent the “wearing down” of the suspect during interrogation.

Defining Interrogation

  • Interpretation in Case Law:

    • Rhode Island v. Innis (1980): “Interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning but also to any police actions or words likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Confessions vs. Incriminating Statements

  • Purpose of Miranda: Designed to prevent coercive statements and eliminate confessions obtained through torture.

  • Key Differences:

    • Confessions: Acknowledges guilt and includes information regarding each essential element of the offense; classified as DIRECT EVIDENCE.

    • Incriminating Statements: May not explicitly acknowledge guilt but tend to implicate the defendant's culpability; classified as CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Parameters of Miranda

  • Miranda Does NOT Attach:

    • Routine traffic stops (as per Berkemer v. McCarty).

    • Brief investigative detentions (as per Terry v. Ohio).

    • Voluntary statements (as per Miranda v. Arizona).

    • Non-custodial situations (as clarified in Miranda).

    • Routine booking (as per PA v. Muniz).

    • Questioning by non-law enforcement officials.

    • Information gathered by undercover operatives (as seen in Hoffa v. U.S.).

Exceptions to Miranda

  • Public Safety Exception (as established in New York v. Quarles).

  • Rescue Doctrine:

    • An urgent need exists that requires immediate action.

    • There is a possibility of saving human life.

    • The primary motivation for the interrogation is to facilitate a rescue.

Special Situations of Self-Incrimination

  • Professional Context: Different implications for varying professions, such as attorneys, school teachers, and police officers.

  • Notable Case: Garrity v. New Jersey - The choice between self-incrimination and losing one’s livelihood undermines free choice to remain silent or speak out.

Co-Conspirator Statements – The Bruton Rule

  • Admissibility Conditions: Must be corroborated and are admissible only in specific circumstances:

    • If the declarant takes the stand during the trial.

    • If the co-conspirators are tried separately.

    • If references to the defendant are omitted from witness testimony.

    • If the charges against the defendant are dropped (as per Bruton v. U.S.).

Constraints on Law Enforcement

  • Deception, Trickery, and Lies: Parameters around the use of deception in interrogation are unclear.

  • Regulations: Law enforcement cannot use physical force in interrogations.

When Does the Fifth Amendment Not Apply?

  • Exempt Situations:

    • Statements regarding a third party.

    • Evidence that is not communicative or testimonial.

    • Situations involving groups, businesses, etc.

    • Non-criminal cases where the state's public interest is unrelated to criminal law enforcement (e.g., child custody cases).

Other Areas Unprotected

  • Examples of Non-Testimonial Evidence:

    • Blood tests or field sobriety checks.

    • Compulsory participation in ID processes and videotaped bookings.

    • Physical examinations mandated by the court.