chapter 7

Question 1

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

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

_____ _____ must be introduced as part of the confession.

Answer 2

Independent corroborative

Question 3

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

Answer 3

Article 36

Question 4

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

Answer 4

thorough investigation

Question 5

What is Article 36?

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

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

Answer 6

free and voluntary; England

Question 7

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.

Answer 7

duress, fear, or compulsion

Question 8

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

Answer 8

false

Question 9

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

Answer 9

totality of circumstances

Question 10

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

Answer 10

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

Question 11

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?

Answer 11

MAY

Question 12

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.

Answer 12

ARE NOT; harmless error

Question 13

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

Answer 13

beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 14

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

Answer 14

preponderance of the evidence

Question 15

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

Answer 15

18 U.S.C. § 3501

Question 16

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?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

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.

Answer 17

MAY NOT

Question 18

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

Answer 18

voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently

Question 19

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.

Answer 19

custody, freedom

Question 20

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

Answer 20

1. number of officers present2. attitude toward the person questioned3. stage of investigation4. environment interview takes place5. whether interviewee is free to leave

Question 21

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

Answer 21

whether he is free to leave

Question 22

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

Answer 22

custody

Question 23

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.

Answer 23

reasonable

Question 24

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.

Answer 24

age and experience

Question 25

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.

Answer 25

DOES NOT

Question 26

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)

Answer 26

questioning

Question 27

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 "_____ _____."

Answer 27

functional equivalent

Question 28

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."

Answer 28

DID NOT

Question 29

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

Answer 29

routine booking

Question 30

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.

Answer 30

testimonial or commutative, real or physical

Question 31

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.

Answer 31

WAS

Question 32

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

Answer 32

DO NOT

Question 33

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?

Answer 33

"full effective equivalent test"

Question 34

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.

Answer 34

IS NOT

Question 35

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.

Answer 35

MAY NOT

Question 36

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

Answer 36

two-week

Question 37

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?

Answer 37

Edwards v. Arizona (1981)

Question 38

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?

Answer 38

DID; yes

Question 39

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.

Answer 39

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

Question 40

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.

Answer 40

coecion or improper tactics

Question 41

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.

Answer 41

DID; question-first

Question 42

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.

Answer 42

IS, minor, serious

Question 43

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

Answer 43

Wong Sun

Question 44

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

Answer 44

unlawful, unlawful

Question 45

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

Answer 45

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

Question 46

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)

Answer 46

casual connecton

Question 47

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

Answer 47

objective

Question 48

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.

Answer 48

IS NOT

Question 49

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

Answer 49

testimony

Question 50

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.

Answer 50

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

Question 51

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

Answer 51

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

Question 52

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

Answer 52

felony

Question 53

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.

Answer 53

investigatory to the accusatory

Question 54

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

Answer 54

Miranda

Question 55

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

Answer 55

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

Question 56

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).

Answer 56

lawyer-like

Question 57

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."

Answer 57

unequivocal

Question 58

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.

Answer 58

DID NOT

Question 59

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

Answer 59

No

Question 60

Review State v Lane (1997)

Answer 60

pg 190

Question 61

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?

Answer 61

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

Question 62

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.

Answer 62

WERE; he just listened

Question 63

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.

Answer 63

charged/indicted

Question 64

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

Answer 64

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

Question 65

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.

Answer 65

deliberate elicitation

Question 66

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?

Answer 66

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

Question 67

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.

Answer 67

inadmissible

Question 68

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

Answer 68

Culombe v Connecticut

Question 69

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

Answer 69

unnecessary

Question 70

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.

Answer 70

6 hours, reasonable

Question 71

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 ____ ____.

Answer 71

corpus delicti

Question 72

What is the Latin for "body of crime?"

Answer 72

corpus delicti

Question 73

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

Answer 73

slight

Question 74

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

Answer 74

impeachment

Question 75

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.

Answer 75

Jackson

Question 76

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

Answer 76

impeachment

Question 77

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

Answer 77

Silence

Question 78

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

Answer 78

involuntarily

Question 79

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

Answer 79

Grand Jury

Question 80

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

Answer 80

public safety

Question 81

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."

Answer 81

confession