5th Amendment Miranda

Question 0

Accusatorial system v. Inquisitorial system

Answer 0

our system is about putting the whole burden of proof on the government if the defendant is a witness against himself its unamerican

Question 1

Miranda (occurs when prosecutor tries to use statement at trial)

Answer 1

1. Custody
2. Interrogation
3. Waiver of Rights
4. Invoked Rights

Question 2

Due Process Clause

Answer 2

voluntariness requirement must be satisfied before a statement obtained by a govt actor can be admitted in court against the maker of the statement

Question 3

Miranda holding

Answer 3

any confession cannot be admissible in court unless certain warnings are given and the person waives their right. The statement must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.

Question 4

interrogation

Answer 4

questions of Christian burial speech; or behavior on the part of the police that the police should know that would elicit an incriminating response

Question 5

Miranda Rule

Answer 5

governs all custodial interrogations by state and federal law enforcement actors and is based on the 5th amend’s privilege against self-incrimination

Question 6

privilege against self incrimination

Answer 6

protects individuals from making incriminating testimonial communications under compulsions by state and federal actors

Question 7

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 7

Facts: Ds were questioned in a room cutoff from the outside world. incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights. interrogation takes place in privacy and privacy results in secrecy and that results in a gap in the knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms. The police manual evidences different compelling police practices. when normal procedures fail to produce the needed result, the police may resort to deceptive stratagems such as giving false legal advice. the police then persuade, trick, or cajole the defendant out of exercising his constitutional rights.

Held: It is obvious that interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. The right against self-incrimination privilege is only fulfilled when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will.

Question 8

in order to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.

Answer 8

1) if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. 2)the warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. 3) An individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege the court delineates. if an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney. 4) it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

Question 9

once warnings have been given:

Answer 9

if the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. Any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion.

Question 10

criticism of Miranda

Answer 10

The privilege was designed as a response to the oath ex officio trilemma:

1. refuse to take the oath and be tortured
2. take the oath and tell the truth and die
3. take the oath and lie and die or eternal damation

Question 11

Prophylactic rule

Answer 11

means the Miranda rule is not constitutionally required but it was put on as a fix or protection

Question 12

Due Process

Answer 12

to be free from involuntary confessions

Question 13

Brown v. Mississippi

Answer 13

Facts: 3 black men were arrested for murder of a white man. The men denied their involvement in the crime, but Sherriff’s deputies pressed them for confessions. One was hanged and the others were whipped and stripped naked.
Held: where a D’s statement is obtained by the police through means of coercion that renders it “involuntary,” the due process clause of the 5th amend requires the trial court to exclude the statement from the D’s criminal trial.

Question 14

reasons for excluding statements under the due process clause

Answer 14

1. Excluding coerced confessions deters police misconduct, satisfying the “deep rooted feeling that police must obey the law while enforcing the law”
2. the exclusionary remedy voices society’s disapproval for techniques so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned
3. exclusion protects the integrity of the courts from evidence that is revolting to the sense of justice.

Question 15

admissibility of confessions

Answer 15

confessions are inadmissible only if they are a product of state conduct; a statement is not constitutionally excludable when obtained through a “private” compulsion

Question 16

Colorado v. Connelly

Answer 16

coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not “voluntary” within the meaning of the due process clause of the 14th

Question 17

the voluntariness standard requires a showing that, under the totality of the circumstances, the D’s statement was a product of free will.

Answer 17

the prosecution bears the burden of establishing voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence

1. The ct. looks to objective factors, focusing on the police (the length of detention, its duration and intensity, and use of deception and promises of leniency) and
2. subjective factors, focusing on the particular vulnerability of the individual suspect (age, education, mental instability, sobriety, and familiarity with the criminal justice system)

Question 18

use of force and physical injury (Arizona v. Fulminante)

Answer 18

manipulating the D’s fear of physical injury will in some circumstances result in coercion.
Facts: Fulminante had been incarcerated. Sarivola offered to protect Fulminante from some rough treatment at the hands of fellow inmates, if Fulminante told the truth about a rumor that he had killed his 11 yr step daughter. Fulminante confessed.
Held: fulminante’s confession was involuntary because there was a credible threat of physical violence such that Fulminante’s will was overborne in such a way as to render his confession the product of coercion

Question 19

Lengthy interrogations and deprivation of bodily needs

Answer 19

1. sometimes interrogations obtain confessions by engaging in lengthy interrogations that break the suspect down even without physical force
2. suspects become sleep deprived and may also be denied adequate food, water, and rest breaks

Question 20

pressure tactics

Answer 20

in determining whether such pressures overcame the defendant’s will, courts consider characteristics such as the defendant’s age, ability to understand, and psychological profile

Question 21

Spano v. New York

Answer 21

Facts: i. murder suspect, interrogated for hours by several officers despite his requests for an attorney and his manifest desire to remain silent
Held: ii. the court considered many factors and the use of a childhood friend which deserves mention in totality of the circumstances. Spano’s will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue and sympathy falsely aroused. the court concluded that the conviction could not stand

Question 22

deception

Answer 22

deception alone does not render a confession involuntary, but constitutes one factor among many to be considered within the totality of the circumstances

Question 23

Promises of Leniency

Lynumn v. Illinois

Answer 23

Facts: i. Lynumn underwent police interrogation. she later testified that, after her initial denial, the officers warned her that if she did not “cooperate” she could get 10 years in prison, suffer a termination of financial aid to her children, and have her children taken away from her. she thought if she confessed she would not be prosecuted. Lynumn testified that she asked the police what to say and was told to admit to the marijuana sale, which she did.
Held: lynumn’s confession had been coerced, reasoning that she had had no previous experience with the criminal law, and had no reason not to believe that the police had ample power to carry out their threats.

Question 24

involuntary due process

Answer 24

look to the totality of the circumstances (can be coercive)

• force or threat
• promises of protection from force
• excessively lengthy interrogations

Question 25

self-incrimination clause

Answer 25

whether the person was compelled to incriminate themselves
-look at objective and subjective factors

*cannot bring section 1983 claiming violation of Miranda.

Question 26

Dickerson v. United States

Answer 26

the court held that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of the Court may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress. Miranda gives concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow. . the court concluded that Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively.

Question 27

McNabb v. United States

Answer 27

1. the court exercising its supervisory power over the federal courts, held that violation of the prompt presentment (bringing forth to a magistrate judge) requirement would be subject tot the exclusionary rule were any statements obtained from the defendant as a result of the delay.

Question 28

Mallory v. United States

Answer 28

confessions obtained because of unnecessary delay in bringing an arrested defendant before a magistrate judge shall be inadmissible, even if voluntary, if and only if the delay exceeded six hours.

Question 29

Miranda’s impact

Answer 29

D. C. study 44 percent of suspects who received all or part of Miranda talked, while 42 percent of those who did not receive the warnings talked
-Miranda probably curtailed physical abuses not the confessions

Question 30

White would strengthen due process rules in 5 circumstances

Answer 30

1. questioning the mentally handicapped
2. lengthy interrogations
3. threats of punishment or promises of leniency
4. threats of adverse consequences to a friend or loved one
5. misrepresenting the evidence against a suspect

Question 31

Miranda threshold (custody)

Answer 31

-police are not required to give Miranda warnings unless they subject a person to a custodial interrogation
-a person is in custody when formally arrested; if there has been no formal arrest, an objective test is used in determining whether a person taken into custody or significantly deprived of freedom: a court must determine how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position
would have understood his situation
*a person is not consider to be in custody unless freedom of movement is restrained in some significant way

Question 32

Berkemer v. McCarty

Answer 32

a person detained pursuant to a traffic stop is not considered to be in custody

• i. detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief
• ii. circumstances associated with the typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police

Question 33

Minnesota v. Murphy

Answer 33

Murphy was not in custody for purposes of Miranda because reporting to a probation officer does not involve a formal arrest or significant restraint on freedom

Question 34

Howes v. Fields

Answer 34

Facts: Fields was serving a prison sentence in Michigan when he was taken to a conference room and questioned by sheriff’s deputies about new offenses that allegedly took place before he came to prison. He was never Mirandized but told he was free to leave. He eventually confessed and was prosecuted. He moved to suppress the confessions.
Held: observing that a break in custody can occur even while a prisoner is serving his sentence. Imprisonment alone is not enough to trigger Miranda custody because questioning someone already in prison does not involve the same shock as questioning a newly arrested suspect; the questioned prisoner is less likely to be lured into speaking in hopes of a quick release; and a prisoner is more likely to know that his questioners probably lack the authority to affect the length of his sentence.

Question 35

Yarborough v. Alvarado

Answer 35

Facts: Alvarado’s parents remained in the lobby of the police station while a detective questioned him for about two hours. The detective did not Mirandize Alvarado, who ultimately acknowledged having some involvement in the killing. Alvarado was escorted back to the parents and they left. Alvarado was later arrested, charged and convicted.
Held: Custody inquiry is an objective one and that the suspect’s age is not necessarily a factor to be considered.

Question 36

Custody is an objective test (factors)

Answer 36

1. Time frame
2. Setting
3. Number of officers
4. Force/handcuff restraints
5. Squad car
6. Time of day

Question 37

JDB (modified custody)

Answer 37

Held: Age should be taken into account for purposes of Miranda warnings.
I. Objective test
1.Would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave
ii. Was there a formal arrest
2. or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal

Question 38

what can affect voluntariness of the child?

Answer 38

that children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them

Question 39

interrogation

Answer 39

where police officers question a suspect

common tactic that police officers use, so the officer should know that those words would reasonably elicit an incriminating response

Question 40

Rhode Island v. Innis

Answer 40

Objective test: words or actions constitute the “functional equivalent” to questioning if the police should know those words or actions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
*knowing depends on any knowledge the police may have had concerning the susceptibility of a D to a particular form of persuasion

Question 41

Arizona v. Mauro

Answer 41

Held: the ct. refused to find that interrogation occurred when police attended, and tape recorded, a meeting between a woman and her husband, who had been taken into custody for suspicion of killing
analysis: The officers were aware of a “possibility” that Mauro would incriminate himself during the meeting but a “possibility does not indicate a sufficient likelihood of incrimination to satisfy the legal standard articulated in Innis

Question 42

sobriety tests

Answer 42

1. statements made in response to an explanation are admissible
2. advising a response renders the response inadmissible
   * when offering sobriety warnings and Miranda warnings there should be a clear break between the two or else i would be a constitutional issue; sufficient time has to elapse so that it is reasonable that the compulsion created by the field sobriety warnings has been dispelled.

Question 43

Hiibel v. 6th D. Ct. of Nevada

Answer 43

Facts: Hiibel refused 11 requests by the officer seeking the man’s name. Hiibel was charged with, and convicted for obstructing a public officer’s discharge of his duties. The charge was based on a statute requiring persons detained by an officer on reasonable suspicion of a crime to identify themselves by name, though the statute prohibited compelling answers to any other inquiry. Hiibel’s claim was that he was compelled to incriminate himself by being required to give his name.
Held: Hiibel giving his name under these particular circumstances would not incriminate him because it would not furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. To disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances.

*this a testimonial case issue; testimonial an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information (means you are revealing something about the substance of your mind.)

Question 44

How Hiibel changes Terry

Answer 44

in Terry a person stopped is not obliged to answer and refusal to answer is no basis for arrest. Identification falls outside was counts as testimonial or incriminating.

Question 45

Salinas v. Texas

Answer 45

Facts: Salinas fell silent during a voluntary interview with the police
Held: there is an “express invocation requirement”, Salina’s challenge to his conviction failed because he did not expressly invoke the 5th Amend.

Question 46

adequacy of warnings

Answer 46

warnings must be given to all suspects who are subjected to custodial interrogation

Question 47

California v. Prysock

Answer 47

Facts: Prysock argued that the language the right to appointed counsel was inadequate because it failed to include information that he could have an attorney appointed for him before and during questioning. After the other rights were stated, Prystock was told he had a right to an attorney before ane during questioning.
Held: Warnings are to be interpreted as a whole. Taken together, the warnings conveyed the right to have a lawyer appointed if he could not afford one prior to and during interrogation. If police cannot provide appointed counsel, Miranda requires only that the police not question a suspect unless he waives his right to counsel.

Question 48

Waiver of rights (burden on prosecution)

Answer 48

a suspect’s statement, made during custodial interrogation, cannot be admitted without a showing

1. that she was given Miranda warnings
2. that she waived Miranda rights in fact and
3. that the waiver was effective
   * the defendant may waive effectuation of his rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently

Question 49

Waiver in Fact

Answer 49

a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that the confession was in fact eventually obtained

Question 50

North Carolina v. Butler

Answer 50

Facts: Butler was arrested following an armed robbery. The agents who arrested him determined he had an 11th grade education and was literate. He was given an Advice of Rights form to read and when asked if he understood those rights, stated he did. He refused to sign the waiver, stating that he will talk to the agents but he will not sign anything. He then made incriminating statements.

Held: An express waiver was not required. The ct emphasized that the question of waiver is not one of form, but rather whether the D in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Waiver can be inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.

Question 51

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Answer 51

Facts essential to waiver analysis:

1. the D’s silence after being properly warned,
2. coupled with an understanding of his rights, and
3. a course of conduct indicating waiver

A statement followed by a warning is thus not alone sufficient to imply a rights waiver. The prosecution must further show that the suspect understood his rights. But, where it does so, his subsequent statement may indeed establish his knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. A waiver inferred from a course of conduct: the law can presume that an individual who, with a full understanding of his or her rights, acts in a manner inconsistent with their exercise has made a deliberate choice to relinquish the protection those rights afford

*his silence could not be used against him in court, only his confession

Question 52

voluntary

Answer 52

1. the waiver must have been voluntary, and
2. it must have been knowingly and intelligently made

considering the totality of the circumstances, the court must find that the waiver was a product of free and deliberate choice

• a long period of time between the rendering of Miranda warnings and the waiver might suggest that the waiver was derived by overcoming the suspect’s will to invoke his Miranda rights

Question 53

Knowing and intelligent

Answer 53

the analysis focuses on the ability of the suspect to understand the warnings and the consequences of speaking (background, experience, and conduct of the accused)

Question 54

Connecticut v. Barret

Answer 54

Facts: Barret was advised of his Miranda rights and signed a card indicating that he understood those rights. He then made verbal admissions to having committed sexual assault, although he insisted that he would not give a written statement unless his attorney was present.
Held: A waiver can be limited in scope. Barret invoked his right to counsel for purposes of making a written statement, but he waived that right to remain silent as to verbal statements. So long as officers honored the scope of his waiver, his statements were admissible.

Question 55

Berghis v. Thompkins (invocation)

Answer 55

Facts: Thompkins was interrogated for 3 hours in an 8 x 10 room with a school chair like desk. He didn’t sign the form that stated he understood his rights. He remained silent during the interrogation with few verbal responses. Interrogator asked if D if he prayed to God to forgive him for shooting the boy down and D stated yes and looked away. D refused to make a written confession and the interrogation ended. He moved to suppress the statements saying they were involuntary and he did not waive his right to remain silent.

Analysis: A suspect must invoke Miranda right to counsel unambiguously(express). If the suspect makes a statement concerning the right to counsel that is ambiguous or equivocal or makes no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, or ask questions to clarify whether the accused wants to invoke his or her Miranda rights. Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. So he did not invoke his right to remain silent.

Question 56

Berghuis v. Thompkins (waiver)

Answer 56

Held: even absent the accused’s invocation of the right to remain silent,, the accused’s statement during a custodial interrogation is inadmissible at trial unless the prosecution can establish that the accused in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived Miranda rights when making a statement. Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused’s uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent. The record in this case shows that Thompkins waived his right to remain silent. His response regarding whether he prayed to God for forgiveness was a course of conduct indicating waiver.

• Miranda required that a waiver be specifically made.
• Berghuis ignored time for waiver whereas Miranda considers it
• silence could not be used in case in chief or impeachment purposes

Question 57

invocation in fact

Answer 57

a suspect who says nothing has not invoked his Miranda rights
-a suspect who says I invoke my right to remain silent, has effectively invoked that right, and a suspect who say, I announce that I will not answer questions without counsel present has successfully invoked right

Question 58

Davis v. United States

Answer 58

Facts: a. Davis had been arrested on suspicion of beating a sailor to death with a pool cue. He was read his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of those rights. Davis agreed to speak with the investigators but about an hour into the interrogation said, Maybe I should talk to a lawyer. The investigators stopped their questioning and attempted to clarify whether Davis wished to consult an attorney. Davis responded that he did not wish to speak with a lawyer and made incriminating statements. An hour later, he stated he wanted to speak with an attorney before saying more. At trial, the court admitted the statements made between Davis’s first, tentative expression of interest in consulting counsel and his ultimate statement that he wanted a lawyer.

Held: The statements were properly admitted. appropriate balance is struck by requiring a suspect to articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.

Question 59

Salinas v. Texas

Answer 59

Facts: Salinas accompanied the officers to the station and took photographs to be clear. Salinas was taken to an interview room, where he was reportedly free to leave, and was questioned without Miranda warnings. Salinas responded to the questions until he was asked whether tests of a shotgun taken from his home by the police would match the shells recovered from the scene of the murder. Salinas fell quiet and purportedly began to fidget. During the closing argument the prosecutor mentioned Salinas silence and told the jury, that an innocent person, would have rebuffed and denied the officer’s accusatory inquiries, yet, Salinas did not.
Held: a defendant’s failure to answer a police officer’s questions before an arrest may be used against the defendant as evidence of his guilt and that prosecutorial comment (implying guilt) on a defendant’s pre-arrest, noncustodial silence at trial does not violate the Constitution’s 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

*the privilege against self-incrimination is an exception to the general principle that the government has a right to everyone’s testimony and that there is an express invocation requirement that requires placing police on notice that the interviewee is relying on the 5th amendment.

Question 60

resumption of questioning after invocation of rights

Answer 60

as a general matter, even after a defendant invokes his rights to remain silent, police may question him with respect to another offense, provided that they “scrupulously honor” his original decision to remain silent.

Question 61

Michigan v. Mosley

Answer 61

Facts: A detective arrested Mosley in connection with some robberies and gave him appropriate Miranda rights. Mosley refused to discuss the robberies and was left alone. Two hours later, a different detective again gave him Miranda warnings and questioned him about an unrelated murder. Mosley then made incriminating statements about the murder
Held: The court held that admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored. Mosley was advised of his rights and was immediately left alone when he invoked them. he was questioned by another detective after being advised of his rights again, and asked only about an unrelated crime.

Question 62

scrupuloulsy honor

Answer 62

• in the right to silence aspect: cease of questioning for a time and take in consideration length of time, new crime , and remirandize
• in the aspect of invoking right to counsel: cease questioning as long as suspect is in custody, until counsel is there, or the defendant initiates further communication and is remirandized

Question 63

Edwards v. Arizona

Answer 63

Facts: Police gave D his Miranda rights and left him alone after he stated he wanted to speak with an attorney. The next morning the officers reapproached Edwards in his jail cell and read him his Miranda rights again. Edwards said he was willing to talk and made incriminating statements that he subsequently sought to suppress.
Held: All government questioning must cease once a suspect exercises the Miranda right to consult an attorney. The later police-initiated questioning violated Edward’s right to the assistance of counsel. The exception would be if the suspect reinitiated questioning.

Question 64

Miranda right to counsel

Answer 64

Custody specific and it extends throughout the entire incident of custody until the suspect is released -invocation of rights and the subsequent interrogation must take place within the same custodial incident

Question 65

Resumption of questioning

Answer 65

if conversations have been initiated by the suspect, they can open the door to further police questioning; when a D’s statements or inquiries can reasonably be interpreted as evincing a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation at hand, an officer may reinitiate questioning

Question 66

Oregon v. Bradshaw

Answer 66

Bradshaw had been arrested and booked. The police read Bradshaw his Miranda rights and later rearrested him for furnishing liquor to the minor who was killed in the car wreck. After that set of warnings, Bradshaw asked for lawyer. As he arrived to the jail, he as what is going to happen to me now. the police advised that he did not have to talk and the officer was not attempting him to talk.
Held: D’s inquiry initiated further conversation and that Edwards did not bar the officer from questioning Bradshaw after that point. iii. once a defendant initiates a conversation, and removes the bar of Edwards, officers must obtain a valid waiver of Miranda rights before the defendant’s statements will be considered admissible.

Question 67

Miranda Exclusionary Rule

Answer 67

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree cases:

1. Oregon v. Elstad
2. States v. Patane
3. Missouri v. Siebert

Question 68

Oregon v. Elstad

Answer 68

Facts: A suspect made an incriminating statement during custodial interrogation before police officers gave him the required Miranda warnings. The statement was inadmissible, but the police failed to relate this information to the suspect. later, police read the suspect his Miranda rights, and he made another confession.
Held: The second statement (fruit of the 1st) could be admissible so long as the first was voluntary. Miranda exclusionary rule is limited to the exact statements or evidence obtained as a direct result of the Miranda violation

Question 69

States v. Patane

Answer 69

Facts: a. Patane violated a restraining order by attempting to contact his ex-girlfriend, officers who arrested him also wished to question him about his possible illegal possession of a firearm. After his arrest, the officers attempted to give him Miranda warnings, but he stated that he knew his rights and they did not complete the warnings. Patane then made inculpatory statements about the firearm, including instructions about where to find it, and was charged with unlawful possession.

Held: Physical evidence obtained from an unwarned confession need not be excluded. The government conceded the inadmissibility of his statements but contended that the firearm itself should be admitted.

Question 70

application of fruit of poisonous tree

Answer 70

• does not apply in Miranda therefore fruit is admitted

- applies in due process and 4th amend, therefore fruit is not admitted unless a given exception

Question 71

Missouri v. Seibert

Answer 71

Facts: Police obtained an unwarned confession and then after giving Miranda warnings, covered the same ground a second time. The successive interrogation technique was intentional (the result of police protocol) pursuant to which the interrogating officer had been taught to question first, then give the warnings, and then repeat the question until they get the answer that the suspect already provided once.
Held: The “question-first” technique used on Seibert thwarted Miranda’s effectiveness and Seibert’s post-warning statements, induced through use of that technique, had to be excluded. He did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his rights because a reasonable person would think that if they already made a statement then it could be used against them.

Question 72

whether Miranda warnings delivered midstream could be effective enough to accomplish their objective the relevant facts to consider are

Answer 72

the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, the overlapping content of the two statements, the timing and setting of the first and the second, the continuity of police personnel, and the degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first → all of these violate Miranda’s effectiveness

Question 73

impeachment

Answer 73

1. statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used for purpose of impeaching the defendant’s trial testimony, provided that those meet usual trustworthiness standards
2. the defendant’s invocation of the Miranda right to remain silent cannot be used for impeachment purposes

Question 74

Doyle v. Ohio

Answer 74

i. it is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s post arrest silence after being given Miranda warnings. It is permissible for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s post arrest silence when no Miranda warnings or their substantial equivalent are given to the defendant

Question 75

Miranda Exceptions

Answer 75

1. Public Safety

2. Routine booking

Question 76

Berkemer v. McCarty

Answer 76

Facts: D was stopped for a traffic offense and he was questioned during the roadside stop and made incriminating remarks.
Held: The motorist was not in custody during that period, and thus that Miranda warnings were not required.

Question 77

New York v. Quarles

Answer 77

Facts: a. Police responded to a midnight report that a woman had been raped at gunpoint. Information provided to the police indicated that the assailant had fled into an allnight grocery store. Officers entered the store spotted Quarles, who had run to the rear of the store. The officers discovered after frisking him that he had an empty shoulder holster. One of the officers asked the handcuffed man where the gun was, without first administering Miranda warnings.
Held: The court created an exception to Miranda’s requirements where police must ask questions in order to prevent an immediate danger to public safety.

Question 78

Routine booking exception

Answer 78

permits officers to ask general biographical questions during booking or pretrial services without first giving Miranda warnings (Pennsylvania v. Muniz)

Question 79

Undercover activities

Answer 79

..

Question 80

Illinois v. Perkins

Answer 80

Facts: Perkins, who was incarcerated on battery charges, came under suspicion for a murder. In order to gather information against him, police placed an undercover agent in the cellblock with him. The undercover agent engaged him in conversation. Perkins responded by describing at length the murder of which he was suspected.

Held: there was no Miranda violation in these circumstances, explaining that conversations between suspects and undercover agents do not implicate the concerns underlying Miranda. If a suspect does not know that he is in the presence of police, those pressures are absent.

Question 81

Salinas v. Texas

Answer 81

Facts: noncustody and unwarned Miranda questioning. D answered questions before and after the questions that caused his silence. D sought 5th amend privilege.
Held: Defendant was required to expressly invoke privilege. the 5th amend does not bar evidence and comments regarding Defendant’s silence because he did not expressly invoke 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination

Question 82

Right to silence

Answer 82

Anytime Miranda is given, no silence or statement should be used to impeach or case in chief
-if a prosecutor tries to use the silence in court after Miranda has been given, that is a due process violation