Chapter 7: Questioning Suspects Flashcards
What are five tests that must be passed for a confession to be admissible?
- Freely and voluntarily made
- With some exceptions, it’s not admitted when no Miranda warning is given
- not tainted by illegal arrest or search
- may not be admitted if not represented by counsel
- must meet requirements established in SCOTUS McNabb v Mallory cases, or the delay in arraignment requirements.
_____ _____ evidence must be introduced as part of the confession.
Independently corroborative
In Sanchez-Llamas v Oregon, SCOUTS ruled that ____ ___ says nothing that invokes the exclusionary rule for violation of its provisions.
Article 36
What the court has condemned is the improper use of questioning as a substitute for a ____ ____.
thorough investigation
What is Article 36?
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.
The traditional test to determine the admissibility of a confession is known as the ___ and ____ rule. This rule was developed in _____.
free and voluntary; England
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.
duress, fear, or compulsion
If a police officer makes a ____ promise in obtaining a confession, the confession can not be considered voluntary.
false
Many courts apply the “____ __ ____” test to determine if a confession is admissible.
totality of circumstances
According to one court, in determining whether a confession was improperly coerced, factors or considerations, other than deceitful tactics by the police, taken into account are what?
age, education, duration of questioning, occurrence of physical punishment, receiving advice of rights
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?
MAY
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.
ARE NOT; harmless error
The court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless ____ _ _____ _____.
beyond a reasonable doubt
In determining the proof necessary as to whether a confession is voluntary, SCOTUS held in 1972 (Lego v Twomey) that it must meet a _____ __ __ _____.
preponderance of the evidence
Unhappy with the Miranda ruling, Congress enacted statute __ U.S.C. § ____ that was based solely on whether the statements were voluntary.
18 U.S.C. § 3501
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?
- time between arrest and arraignment
- knew the nature of the offense
- knew he was not required to make a statement or could be used against him
- been advised of right to counsel
- was without counsel when questioned and when giving the confession
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.
MAY NOT
A waiver of rights must be given ____, ____, and ____.
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
An accused must be given their Miranda warning if they are in ____ or otherwise deprived of their ____ of action in any significant way.
custody, freedom
Facts to be considered in determining whether someone is in custody include what?
- number of officers present
- attitude toward the person questioned
- stage of investigation
- environment interview takes place
- whether interviewee is free to leave
The determining factor is not whether at a police station or at home, but what?
whether he is free to leave
In Oregon v Mathiason (1977), the court did not reverse Miranda, but rather helped define what?
custody
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.
reasonable
In _____ v _____ (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.
Yarborough v Alvarado, age and experience
In _____ v _____ (1984), SCOTUS 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.
Berkemer v McCarty, DOES NOT
Words or 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)).
questioning
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 “_____ _____.”
functional equivalent
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 was not actual questioning or “its functional equivalent.”
DID NOT
In Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990), SCOTUS found that ____ ____ questions were not intended to elicit information for investigatory purposes, so Miranda was not required.
routine booking
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.
testimonial or commutative, real or physical
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.
WAS
California v Prysock (1981) held that Miranda warnings DO / DO NOT have to be given in the exact terms as stated in Miranda.
DO NOT
Miranda warnings do to need to be given in the exact terms as they are printed in the Miranda case, but any substitute must meet what test?
“full effective equivalent test”
SCOTUS 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.
IS NOT
In Edwards v Arizona, SCOTUS held that after a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, police MAY / MAY NOT reinitiate custodial interrogation without counsel present or a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of that right.
MAY NOT
In Maryland v Shatzer (2010), SCOTUS held that police may re-open questioning if there has been a ___-____ break in Miranda custody.
two-week
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?
Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
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?
DID; yes
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.
separate; Roberson was questioned 3 days after being arrested and on a different case after requesting a lawyer when initially arrest.
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.
coecion or improper tactics
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 (Oregon v Elstad 1985).
DID; question-first
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.
IS, minor, serious
Statements made in court may be challenged on the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, also know as the ____ ____ doctrine.
Wong Sun
In Wong Sun (1963), an oral statement implicating an accused was held inadmissible because it was made immediately following an _____ entry and an _____ arrest.
unlawful, unlawful
In Brown v Illinois (1975), SCOTUS held that a confession after an illegal arrest even with the Miranda warning, WAS / WAS NOT admissible.
WAS NOT due to it being a fruit of the illegal arrest
In Brown v Illinois (1975), the court held that there is a ____ _____ between the illegality of the arrest and the confession. Also Dunaway v New York (1979)
casual connecton
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
objective
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.
IS NOT
In US v Patane (2004), because there was no _____, the self-incrimination clause did not apply.
testimony
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.
DOES NOT; potential violations occur, if at all, if admitted at trial
Powell v Alabama (1932) provided for what in capital cases?
right to counsel for those unable to afford an attorney or mount a defense
In 1963, Gideon v Wainwright extended the rights of Powell v Alabama to all persons standing trial for a _____ offense.
felony
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.
investigatory to the accusatory
Due to two questions left unanswered in Escobedo v. Illinois, _____ was decided two years later.
Miranda
What were the two questions left unanswered in Escobedo v. Illinois?
- how to make sure the accused knew of their right to counsel
- the difference between investigatory and accusatory
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).
lawyer-like
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.”
unequivocal
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.
DID NOT
Is it necessary for police to notify a suspect in custody that an attorney has been retained for them? Moran v Burbine (1986)
No
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?
Yes, because the situation was likely to induce incriminating statements without counsel present; case reversed
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.
WERE; he just listened
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.
charged/indicted
Mental retardation, in itself, DOES / DOES NOT render a defendant incapable of waiving his Miranda rights?
DOES NOT, but care should be taken based on lack of education, lack of familiarity with justice system, etc
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.
deliberate elicitation
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. Why were both sets of statements suppressed?
because he was questioned without proper representation of counsel after being indicted
Sometimes referred to as the ____-____ 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.
McNabb-Mallory, inadmissible
The McNabb-Mallory rule where a confession is inadmissible if obtained during an unreasonably long period of detention between arrest and preliminary hearing was extended to states in 1961 in what case?
Culombe v Connecticut
The McNabb-Mallory rule applies if there is an _____ delay.
unnecessary
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.
6 hours, reasonable
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 ____ ____.
corpus delicti
What is the Latin for “body of crime?”
corpus delicti
Only ____ evidence of the corpus delicti is needed to corroborate a confession and sustain a conviction.
slight
In Oregon v Hass (1975), the court reiterated its approval of the use of statements given without Miranda for _____ purposes.
impeachment
The ____ rule provides that once a criminal defendant invokes his 6th Amendment right to counsel, a subsequent waiver of the right, even if voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under traditional standards, is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to a police-initiated conversation.
Jackson (Michigan v. Jackson 1986)
In overturning the Jackson rule, the courts allowed for the use of the statement for _____ purposes.
impeachment
____ on the part of the accused after Miranda warnings cannot be used for impeachment purposes due to an intolerable prejudicial influence.
Silence
If a confession is obtained _____, it cannot be used for impeachment purposes.
involuntarily
Miranda warnings do not need to be given at ___ ___ hearings.
Grand Jury
In New York v Quarles (1984), SCOTUS announced a limited ____ ____ exception to the requirement of Miranda for those in custody.
public safety
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.”
confession
In ____ v ____, the transporting officer gave the defendant what has come to be known as the “Christian burial speech.” In this case, the actions amounted to interrogation and violated the 5th Amendment.
Brewer v Williams
In ____ ____ v ____, the court concluded that Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.
Rhode Island v Innis
