Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Legal Issues > chapter 7 > Flashcards

chapter 7 Flashcards

1
Q

What are five tests that must be passed for a confession to be admissable?

A
  1. Freely and voluntarily made2. With some exceptions, it’s not admitted when no Miranda warning is given3. not admissible if tainted by illegal arrest or search4. may not be admitted if not represented by counsel5. must meet requirements established in SCOTUS McNabb v Mallory cases, or the delay in arraignment requirements.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

_____ _____ must be introduced as part of the confession.

A

Independent corroborative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

In Sanchez-Llamas v Oregon, SCOUTS ruled that ____ ___ says nothing that invokes the exclusionary rule for violation of its provisions.

A

Article 36

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What the court has condemned is the improper use of questioning to as a substitute for a ____ ____.

A

thorough investigation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is Article 36?

A

Foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice “without delay” of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The traditional test to determine the admissibility of a confession is known as the ___ and ____ rule. This rule was developed in _____.

A

free and voluntary; England

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

The free and voluntary rule states that the confession is admissible in evidence only if it was made without ___, ___, or ____ and with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession.

A

duress, fear, or compulsion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

If a police officer makes a ____ promise in obtaining a confession, the confession can not be considered voluntary.

A

false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Many courts apply the “____ __ ____” test to determine if a confession is admissible.

A

totality of circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

According to one court, in determining whether a confession was improperly coerces, factors or considerations other than deceitful tactics by the police are what?

A

age, duration of questioning, occurrence of physical punishment, receiving advice of rights, and level of education

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In Payne v Arkansas (1958), SCOTUS held that even if there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction without a coerced confession, the conviction MAY / MAY NOT be reversed if the coerced confession was introduced at trial?

A

MAY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

In 1991, a divided SCOTUS held that coerced confessions used at trail ARE / ARE NOT always entitled to a new trial. The error to admit the confession may be considered _____ _____ if other trial evidence was strong enough to convict.

A

ARE NOT; harmless error

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

The court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless ____ _ _____ _____.

A

beyond a reasonable doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

In determining the proof necessary as to whether a confession is voluntary, SCOTUS held in 1972 (Lego v Twomey) that it must meet a _____ __ __ _____.

A

preponderance of the evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Unhappy with the Miranda ruling, Congress enacted statute __ U.S.C. § ____ that was based solely on whether the statements were voluntary.

A

18 U.S.C. § 3501

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

In determining the voluntary nature of the statement, 18 U.S.C. § 3501 provided what 5 guidelines although they need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness?

A
  1. time between arrest and arraignment , if made after arrest and before arraignment2. whether defendant knew the nature of the offense 3. whether defendant knew he was not required to make a statement or that it could be used against him4. whether he had been advised of right to counsel5. whether defendant was without counsel when questioned and when giving the confession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

In Dickerson v US (2000), SCOTUS ruled that there was an obvious conflict between Miranda and § 3501. The court ruled that Congress MAY / MAY NOT supersede the ruling legislatively.

A

MAY NOT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

A waiver of rights must be given ____, ____, and ____.

A

voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

An accused in custody must be given their Miranda warning if they are in ____ or otherwise deprived of his ____ of action in any significant way.

A

custody, freedom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Facts to be considered in determining whether someone is in custody include what?

A
  1. number of officers present2. attitude toward the person questioned3. stage of investigation4. environment interview takes place5. whether interviewee is free to leave
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

The determining factor is not whether at a police station or at home, but what?

A

whether he is free to leave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

In Oregon v Mathiason (1977), the court did not reverse Miranda, but rather helped define what?

A

custody

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

In US v Hicks (1997), the courts held in determining whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, the court should consider how a _____ person in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.

A

reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

In Yarborough v Alvarado (2004), SCOTUS held that ___ and ____ with the criminal justice system are not required in addressing the ability of a person to formulate a proper decision of whether he could terminate an interview.

A

age and experience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

In Berkemer v McCarty (1984), SCOUTS held that roadside questioning during a routine traffic stop DOES / DOES NOT constitute custodial interrogation unless the officer subjects the motorist to treatment that renders him “in custody” for practical purposes.

A

DOES NOT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Words of actions on the part of the officer that would be reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses from the suspect can still be considered _____? Brewer v Williams (1977)

A

questioning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Rhode Island v. Innis, (1980) held that Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected either to express questioning or to its “_____ _____.”

A

functional equivalent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Arizona v Mauro (1987) held that police allowing a suspect to see his wife while an officer was present and the conversation was recorded DID / DID NOT amount to a violation of Miranda because it actual questioning or “its functional equivalent.”

A

DID NOT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

In Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990), SCOTUS found that ____ ____ questions were not intended to elicit information for investigatory purposes, so Miranda was not required.

A

routine booking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

The court also found in Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990) that suspects have a right against self-incrimination of a ____ or ____ nature, but not from being compelled to produce “____ or ____” evidence.

A

testimonial or commutative, real or physical

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

The court also found in Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990) that the response to the 6th birthday question WAS / WAS NOT testimonial (not a routine booking question) and required Miranda.

A

WAS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

California v Prysock (1981) held that Miranda warnings DO / DO NOT have to be given in the exact terms as stated in Miranda.

A

DO NOT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Miranda warning do to need to be given in the exact terms of they are printed in the Miranda case, but any substitute must meet what test?

A

“full effective equivalent test”

34
Q

SCOUTS also indicated that there IS / IS NOT a legal requirement that the suspect make an express statement that he waives his rights after Miranda is given.

A

IS NOT

35
Q

In Edwards v Arizona,SCOTUS held that after a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment’s right to counsel police MAY / MAY NOT reinitiate custodial interrogation without counsel present or a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of that right.

A

MAY NOT

36
Q

In Maryland v Shatzer (2010), SCOTUS held that police may re-open questioning if there has been a ___-____ break in Miranda custody.

A

two-week

37
Q

What case by the United States Supreme Court held that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel police must cease custodial interrogation unless the suspect reinitiates questioning?

A

Edwards v. Arizona (1981)

38
Q

In Oregon v Bradshaw (1983), Bradshaw’s question here, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?,” DID / DID NOT initiate questioning on his own accord after requesting an attorney? Are the statements that follow admissible?

A

DID; yes

39
Q

In Arizona v Roberson (1988), the Edwards rule applies to bar police-initiated interrogation following a suspect’s request for counsel in the context of a ______ investigation.

A

separate; Roberson was questioned 3 days after being arrested and on a different case after requesting a lawyer when initially arrest.

40
Q

In Oregon v Elstad (1985), a second statement after an initial statement where Miranda should have applied will probably not be excluded if _____ or _____ were not used.

A

coecion or improper tactics

41
Q

Missouri v. Seibert (2004) held the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession DID / DID NOT violate the 5th Amendement. This struck down the ____-____ tactic being used by police.

A

DID; question-first

42
Q

In Colorado v Spring (1987), SCOTUS held that a suspect’s Miranda waiver IS / IS NOT valid even if he believes that questioning will focus on ____ crimes but police shift the questioning to cover a different and more ____ crime.

A

IS, minor, serious

43
Q

Statements made in court may be challenged on the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, also know as the ____ ____ doctrine.

A

Wong Sun

44
Q

In Wong Sun (1963), an oral statement implicating an accused was held inadmissible because it was made immediately following an _____ entry and an _____ arrest.

A

unlawful, unlawful

45
Q

In Brown v Illinois (1975), SCOTUS held that a confession after an illegal arrest even with the Miranda warning, WAS / WAS NOT admissible.

A

WAS NOT due to it being a fruit of the illegal arrest

46
Q

In Brown v Illinois (1975), the court held that their is a ____ _____ between the illegality of the arrest and the confession. Also Dunaway v New York (1979)

A

casual connecton

47
Q

In determining whether a defendant’s statements should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonness tree, the court examines the effects of the police conduct at the time of the alleged seizure, applying the _____ standard. State v Banks 2000

A

objective

48
Q

In US v Patane (2004), SCOTUS ruled that because Miranda protects against violations of the self-incrimination clause, it IS / IS NOT violated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements.

A

IS NOT

49
Q

In US v Patane (2004), because there was no _____, the self-incrimination clause did not apply.

A

testimony

50
Q

In US v Patane (2004), SCOTUS pointed out that mere failure to give Miranda warnings DOES / DOES NOT, by itself, violate a suspect’s constitutional rights.

A

DOES NOT; potential violations occur, if at all, if admitted at trial

51
Q

Powell v Alabama (1932) provided for what in capital cases?

A

right to counsel for those unable to afford an attorney or mount a defense

52
Q

In 1963, Gideon v Wainwright extended the rights of Powell v Alabama to all persons standing trial for an _____ offense.

A

felony

53
Q

The Supreme Court held in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) that where a police investigation shifts from the _____ to the _____, and under the circumstances in this cases, the accused has the right to counsel.

A

investigatory to the accusatory

54
Q

Due to two questions left unanswered in Escobedo v. Illinois, _____ was decided two years later.

A

Miranda

55
Q

What were the two questions left unanswered in Escobedo v. Illinois?

A
  1. how to make sure the accused knew of their right to counsel2. the difference between investigatory and accusatory
56
Q

A suspect’s request for an attorney does not have to be made with ____-___ precision; it just needs to be made clear, such as in Robinson v Borg (1990).

A

lawyer-like

57
Q

In Davis v US (1994), SCOTUS held that Davis had not made an _____ request for an attorney when he said, “Maybe I should get a lawyer.”

A

unequivocal

58
Q

In James v Marshall (2003), James DID / DID NOT make an unequivocal request for an attorney when he said that he did not want to make a statement, but would talk about what happened.

A

DID NOT

59
Q

Moran v Burbine (1986). Is it necessary for police to notify a suspect in custody that an attorney has been retained for them?

A

No

60
Q

Review State v Lane (1997)

A

pg 190

61
Q

In US v Henry (1930), a cellmate had initiated a discussion with Henry which lead to incriminating statements. The FBI agent told him just to be alert to possible statements and not start any discussion. Even though the cellmate did not ask any direct questions, did the government violate Henry’s right to counsel?

A

Yes,because the situation was likely to induce incriminating statements without counsel present ; case reversed

62
Q

In Kullman v Wilson (1986), SCOTUS held that inculpatory statements made by a defendant WERE / WERE NOT admissible when the jailmate did not interrogate the suspect by eliciting incriminating information or by initiating any discussion.

A

WERE; he just listened

63
Q

In Illinois v Perkins (1986), SCOTUS held that the undercover agent’s questioning of a suspect in jail did not circumvent the 6th Amendment right to counsel because the suspect had not been ____ with the crime on the subject of the interrogation.

A

charged/indicted

64
Q

Mental retardation, in itself, DOES / DOES NOT render a defendant incapable of waiving his Miranda rights?

A

DOES NOT, but care should be taken based on lack of education, lack of familiarity with justice system, etc

65
Q

The “____ ____ standard” of Massiah v US (1964), holds that obtaining incriminating statements, after the filing of formal charges, without the presence of counsel violates a suspect’s rights.

A

deliberate elicitation

66
Q

In Fellers v. United States (2004), statements made to officers at Feller’s home after being indicted were suppressed as were the statements made after his Miranda warnings were given at the jail. Whey were both sets of statements suppressed?

A

because he was questioned without proper representation of counsel after being indicted

67
Q

Sometimes referred to as the McNabb-Mallory rule, the U.S. rule of evidence that a confession is ______ if obtained during an unreasonably long period of detention between arrest and preliminary hearing.

A

inadmissible

68
Q

The McNabb-Mallory rule was extended to states in 1961 in what case?

A

Culombe v Connecticut

69
Q

The McNabb-Mallory rule applies if this is an _____ delay.

A

unnecessary

70
Q

In 1968, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 3501(c) that the time of ____ hours between an arrest and confession, but gave the judge latitude if there was a _____ delay.

A

6 hours, reasonable

71
Q

A defendant cannot be convicted on his own uncorroborated confession without proof that a crime has been committed by someone – that is, without proof of the ____ ____.

A

corpus delicti

72
Q

What is the Latin for “body of crime?”

A

corpus delicti

73
Q

Only ____ evidence of the corpus delicti is needed to corroborate a confession and sustain a conviction.

A

slight

74
Q

In Oregon v Hass (1975), the court reiterated its approval of the use of statements given without Miranda for _____ purposes.

A

impeachment

75
Q

The ____ rule provides that once a criminal defendant invokes his 6th Amendment right to counsel, a subsequent waiver of the right, even inf voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under traditional standards, is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to a police-initiated conversation.

A

Jackson

76
Q

In overturning the Jackson rule, the courts allowed for the use of the statement for _____ purposes.

A

impeachment

77
Q

____ on the part of the accused after Miranda warnings cannot be used for impeachment purposes due to an intolerable prejudicial influence.

A

Silence

78
Q

If a confession is obtained _____, it cannot be used for impeachment purposes.

A

involuntarily

79
Q

Miranda warnings do not need to be given at ___ ___ hearings.

A

Grand Jury

80
Q

In New York v Quarles (1984), SCOTUS announced a limited ____ ____ exception to the requirement of Miranda for those in custody.

A

public safety

81
Q

As held in Missouri v Seibert, officers cannot purposefully gain a ______ without Miranda and then Mirandize the person to get an admissible confession if “used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning.”

A

confession

Legal Issues (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions