5th Am Voluntariness & Miranda Flashcards
voluntariness constitutional tether
o this has been linked to the protection of Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendments (Brown)
not the “right against self-incrim” because at the time (1930s), that had not been adopted against the states
the main inquiry for voluntariness and the BOP
o the inquiry: is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? (Fulimante)
if yes – it may be used against him
if no – his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, so the use of his confession offends DP
• can be overborne physically or mentally
**no matter what it is – appealing to someone’s religion; lying to someone; making a false promise, etc., the inquiry will always be whether the suspect’s will was overborne
o the prosecution has the BOP that a confession is voluntary (Denno)
even if the court determines the confession to be voluntary, the ∆ can still try to convince the jury otherwise (Crane)
what to take into account when considering voluntariness (objective/subjective?)
o rule: voluntariness is to be determined by a totality of the circumstances (Crane)
the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession include not only the police conduct in eliciting the confession, but also the susceptibility to coercion of the particular defendant
**the court is willing to look at the psychological effects on this specific (subjective) (Spano)
factors (Ashcraft):
• (1) length of interrogation
• (2) deprivation of bodily needs
rules for how the police’s actions factor into voluntariness
o deception rule: lies & deceptive practices are okay, but there is a line (like threatening someone’s kids) (Lynumn)
o rule: police coercive activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not voluntary (Connelly)
this is the case where the guy had a mental impairment and confessed to a murder – the court said that even though he may not have been mentally capable of a voluntary confession, the fact that the cops did not coerce his confession means that it will not be excluded for lack of voluntariness
where does voluntariness fit into the equation with Miranda (4 areas)
**remember with these that we still need coercion (like the police using an injury against the suspect)
voluntariness can still be an issue in cases where the suspect is not in custody and Miranda rights are not required
a confession can still be attacked on voluntariness grounds even if police give complete Miranda warnings and obtain waivers
traditional voluntariness concepts are employed to test whether a Miranda waiver is valid (i.e. Miranda waivers must be voluntary)
statements taken in violation of Miranda can be used to impeach; involuntary statements cannot
miranda constitutional tether
o unlike voluntariness, this is housed in the 5th Am’s right against self-incrim (and 5th Am’s right to counsel is designed to protect)
governing rule and 5 key points for miranda
o governing rule: the prosecution may not use testimonial statements (exculpatory or inculpatory) stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrim (Miranda)
∆ may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
if he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wished to consult with an attny before speaking, there can be no questioning
if he is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him
**the mere fact that he may have answered some questions/volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further
the court will not look to the individual’s personal knowledge - this is a “one size fits all” rule
the miranda procedural safeguards
o Procedural Safeguards
(1) must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms of the right to remain silent
(2) must be informed that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court
(3) must be informed of right to have counsel present at the interrogation, and
(4) must be informed that he is indigent, counsel will be appointed for him
define custodial interrogation
o custodial interrogation: questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
4 rules for “in custody” for miranda purposes (what does it mean and when does it apply)
rule: person is “in custody” for Miranda purposes when he or she either is arrested formally or his or her freedom of movement is restricted to a degree associated with a formal arrest (Mathiason)
• seizure of a lesser degree does not constitute being placed in custody
rule: the determination of whether an individual is in custody depends on the circumstances viewed objectively not on the subjective views of either the interrogating officer or the person being questioned – the inquiry looks to how a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would understand the situation (Stansbury)
• exception for minors: if the minor’s age was known to the officer at the time of police questioning or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, then consideration of the minor’s age as part of determining whether he or she was in custody is consistent with the objective nature of that test
rule: Miranda requirements apply when a person is arrested even if the arrest is for a misdemeanor traffic offense (Berkemer)
rule: Miranda requirements do not apply to questioning during an ordinary traffic stop or during a Terry stop (Berkemer)
defining “interrogation” for miranda purposes
rule: the term “interrogation” refers not only to express questioning but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect (Innis)
• ex) where police do not question the defendant and simply tape record a convo between him and his wife, there has been no interrogation (Mauro)
rule: Miranda does not apply to undercover law enforcement agents (Perkins)
• **no risk of coercion because ∆ does not know he is a cop
**so interrogation is defined by the COERCIVE atmosphere
3 rules on miranda requirements for police when delivering the warnings
rule: there is not exact phrasing that is required for the conveying of Miranda rights to be constitutionally acceptable – instead, the critical determination is whether the warnings issued reasonably convey to a suspect her rights as required by Miranda (Eagan)
rule: the fact that police withhold from a suspect the info that an attny sought to consult with him is (for some reason) not a constitutional violation (Moran)
• really because it has no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right
rule: the police have no duty to inform a suspect of the nature of the crime for which he is under suspicion because the additional info could affect only the wisdom of a Miranda waiver, not its essentially voluntary and knowing nature (Spring)
rule for witness learned of via miranda violation
rule: a witness learned of/discovered through an interrogation conducted in violation of Miranda is not to be excluded or prevented from testifying based upon a Miranda violation (Tucker)
• this is due to the fact that Miranda offers more protection than what is constitutionally required – so the court will allow a witness to testify if their name was voluntarily given to the cops in violation of Miranda
Elstad and the dualing opinions in Seibert regarding miranda and two-stage interrogation
Elstad rule: the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply so as to invalidate voluntary and informed subsequent waivers of Miranda rights where law enforcement had previously failed to administer the Miranda warnings resulting in an inculpatory statement in the absence of any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise her free will
• i.e. if you question the suspect (pre Miranda warnings) and he voluntarily speaks, and then you give the Miranda warnings and he voluntarily speaks again, the first line of questioning will not invalidate the second line of questioning - unless the first line of questioning was coercive
• Souter’s Siebert plurality: if a two-stage custodial interrogation occurs (the first stage un-Mirandized – the second stage Mirandized), the admissibility of post-warning statements depends upon whether the Miranda warnings delivered midstream could have been effective enough to accomplish their objective under the totality of the circumstances – assessed objectively rather than subjectively
o i.e. if the warnings were given after a sufficient amount of time to allow a reasonable person to understand that they have a choice in answering questions – “question first, mirandize later” during a single, continuous interrogation is improper
o **objective analysis
• Kennedy’s Siebert concurrence: the Elstad rule applies unless law enforcement deliberately employs a two-step strategy – if a deliberate two-step strategy has been used, post-warning statements are inadmissible unless curative measures are taken before the post-warning statements are made
o **so Kennedy wants it to be a subjective analysis – taking into account any bad faith by officers
o the curative measures should be designed to ensure that a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would understand the import and effect of the Miranda warning and waiver
3 key rules for miranda waiver
rule: a Miranda violation does not result in the exclusion of physical evidence obtained as a result of that violation (Patane)
rule: while an express written or oral waiver of the right to remain silent or right to counsel is strong proof of the validity of waiver of those rights, a valid waiver can occur even where it is not express (Butler)
• a valid waiver of Miranda rights can be established through the coupling of: (1) defendant understanding his rights with (2) a defendant engaging in a course of conduct indicating waiver
rule: the totality of the circumstances approach is adequate to determine whether there has been a wavier, even when interrogation of juveniles is involved (Fare)
• this includes considering the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights
• **but remember, these factors are only relevant as they relate to determining whether there was impermissible police behavior in obtaining incriminating
