Chapter 8: Interrogations and Confessions Flashcards
In many cases, police do not solve crimes reliant upon scientific ______________, and eyewitness _____________. Many times, they have no other recourse but to rely on _______________.
evidence; testimony; confessions
Confessions
when one tells officer they committed a crime after being questioned by the officer.
Imagine a case where a woman is found dead in her home, having been murdered. Police are unable to find fingerprint, DNA, clothing fibers, or any other evidence that would point to a suspect. The police question several people (potential suspects) who knew of the woman including her ex-husband and brother-in-law. They both tire under intensive questioning and admit they killed the woman. This tells us 3 things of importance regarding confessions:
1) Sometimes, _____________ are the only way officers can learn about the crime.
2) suspects aren’t willing to a ____________ to their crime unless law enforcement employs _____________ and _________ questioning.
3) _____________ require specific techniques that would be considered a form of ______________ in an ordinary encounter between police and public.
1) confessions
2) admit; intensive; lengthy
3) interrogations; trickery
Confessions during an ______________ help in 2 ways: 1) it helps _____________ the _____________, without having to subject them to the _________ associated with questioning. 2) ____________ of guilt is the first step in an offender taking _____________, on the road towards _____________.
interrogations; exonerate; innocent; time; admission; responsibility; rehabilitation
Admission
When a suspect voluntarily admits to a fact that may indicate criminal guilt.
One problem associated with confessions is __________ ___________. This is generally facilitated through __________________ interrogations by the police, where police interrogate the suspect w/o the presence of a ___________ lawyer, allowing police to resort to ______________ coercion.
abusive conduct; incommunicado; defense; psychological
Challenges that arise from use of confessions
#1 Fair Procedures
Too much reliance on confessions defeats the purpose of one’s guilt being ascertained in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Challenges that arise from use of confessions
#2 Reliability
Wrongful convictions may arise, if someone gives a false confession.
Challenges that arise from the use of confessions
#3 Inequality
A poor, uneducated man, who can’t afford an attorney and isn’t aware of their rights, might be easily coerced by police to giving a confession.
A wealthy, educated man, however, may decline answering the question and wait until his attorney is present, who he can afford.
False Confessions
innocent individuals confess to a crime they did not commit.
Statements
oral / written declaration to police that may constitute assertion of innocence.
Even a __________ number of false confessions is “_______ ______.”
small; “too many”
3 Types of False Confessors
1) Voluntary False Confessors
2) Compliant False Confessors
3) Internalized False Confessors
Voluntary False Confessors
people confess to crime for…
- publicity
- bc they feel guilt about a past crime
- intellectually disabled
Compliant False Confessors
people who confess…
- to avoid abuse treatment by officers,
- to receive favorable treatment in sentencing, and be imprisoned near family home.
Internalized False Confessors
Confessors who…
- accept police facts
- fail lie detector test, and come to belief that they did commit the crime.
Three Constitutional Provisions Supreme Court relies on to ensure fairness of confessions
1) 14th Amendment
2) 5th Amendment
3) 6th Amendment
1) 14th Amendment (Due Process Clause)
No state shall deprive anyone of life liberty or property w/o due process of law.
Due process clause ensures that confessions are not obtained as the result of trickery / manipulation.
If confessions were obtained using coercion, trickery, etc., we would say this violates one’s liberty to give a free / uncoerced confession, –> which may end up depriving the person liberty through imprisonment.
2) 5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination Clause)
No person shall be compelled (in any criminal case) to be a witness against himself.
Self incrimination clause protects people from being forced to testify against themselves.
Accusatorial System
- Burden of proof falls on prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Defendants are protected from having to testify against themselves.
Inquisitorial System
- Defendant does not enjoy right against self incrimination.
- Judge will asks defendant questions (as to his involvement in crime).
Star Chamber
Est. 15 Century England
Inquisitorial court
prosecuted political and religious dissidents (rebels).
Resorted to torturing prisoners to gain confessions out of them.
3) 6th Amendment (Counsel Clause)
Defendants have the right to legal counsel to serve in their defense.
Supreme Court used the 6th Amendment to prevent police officers from establishing guilt using any ______________ means.
extrajudicial
The balancing test in this chapter is between law enforcement’s need for a _____________ AGAINST protecting a _____________’s rights.
confession; suspect’s
14th Amendment Due Process Voluntariness test.
- Dates back to English Common law.
- Confessions obtained through physical or psychological coercion, that overcome the will of the suspect to resist, are inadmissible.
In Bram v. U.S., (1897), the Supreme Court ruled that the English common law making ____________ gained through _________ tactics inadmissible, provides the same protections as the __th Amendment self incrimination clause. The Court ruled that ____________ confessions of defendants were inadmissible.
This ruling only applied to the fed. govt, the 5th Amendment wasn’t incorporated until 1964.
confessions; coercive; 5th; involuntary
The __________ of the administration of justice was different from it’s ______________.
Despite the Bram (1864) ruling, several officers were cited for the use of _________ ____________.
philosophy; application; Third Degree
Third Degree
use of violence & coercion to extract confessions from suspects
In Beecher v. Alabama (1967), Beecher, a black man, was running across an open field trying to escape the police.
One of the police shot Beecher’s right _____. One officer jammed the end of a pistol in Beecher’s ________, the other aimed a rifle at the side of his _______. The police threatened to ________ Beecher unless he confessed to the rape of a “white woman.” The officer w/ the rifle fired a round next to Beecher’s ear, and Beecher confessed.
The pain Beecher suffered as a result of the rifle shot to the leg required him to take ____________ every 4 hours. Investigators had Beecher participate in an interrogation, and the medical assistant told Beecher to comply.
Beecher signed statements for the police, and his _____________ and conviction were overturned.
The 1967 ruling is a clear case of the use of the __________ __________ used by police.
In Beecher v. Alabama (1972), the case of Beecher was re-opened because Beecher made _____________ statements under the influence of __________ during the police interrogation. The police used these statements on which he would later be sentenced to the _________ penalty.
The Court ruled that the confessions made by Beecher were grossly ______________, and therefore inadmissible. He was questioned at a time in which he would be compelled to say something against his __________, given the influence of the _____________. The Supreme Court rejected this attempt for a second conviction.
leg; face; ear; kill
morphine
confession
third degree
incriminating; morphine; death; coerced; will; morphine.
In Brown v. Mississippi, (1936), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of _____________ at trial which were obtained through __________ coercion violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Arthur Brown was confronted by the police and a large White ____. They wanted him to confess to a murder. He only gave the confession because the police ________ him to do so.
The mob hung Brown from a tree, and __________ him. He was brought down, where he faced beatings until being strung up again. He eventually confessed and signed a ___________ document that the police dictated him to.
Supreme Court ruled that ___________ obtained through ___________ coercion present the risk that someone who is innocent may well be subject to unfair terms of _____________.
The Court also ruled that the methods used to obtain a _________ confession of _________ in this case violates the ____________ liberties afforded to defendants under the Due Process Clause.
Rack and ____________ chambers cannot substitute a defendant _________ on the witness stand.
confessions; physical
mob; forced
whipped; confession
confessions; physical; imprisonment
false; guilt; fundamental
torture; testifying
The Supreme Court ruled that the __________ of the defendant is to be discovered in _________ by the govt using the ___________ ___ __________ _________ standard, and authorities may not derive evidence of _________ through any other means.
guilt; court; beyond a reasonable doubt; guilt
Incommunicado Interrogation
questioning suspects in the isolation of a police station.
In Ashcraft v. Tennessee, (1944), the Supreme Court decided to _________ the Due Process Clause to also prohibit ____________ coercion.
E.E. Ashcraft solicited the ________ of his wife.
The police used ____________ _____________ to interrogate Ashcraft.
The Supreme Court ruled that the “rack and thumbscrew” ____________ torture is now matched with the ____________ persuasion.
Ashcraft was questioned in a _____________ setting that rendered useless his ability to exercise a __________ choice.
The pressure placed on suspects to confess their __________, created by this form of questioning, makes _______ ___________ meaningless.
expand; psychological
murder
incommunicado interrogation
physical; psychological
coercive; rational
guilt; due process
Fundamental Fairness
Due Process Clause prohibits criminal procedures that are fundamentally unfair.
Using __________ of __________ treatment, __________ not to ___________, to get a confession, and these confessions then being admitted into evidence we would say is against Due Process.
promise; favorable; promise; prosecute
Police Methods Test
Due process standard that regulates police interrogation techniques.
unlawful interrogation techniques that incriminate suspects are just as harmful as crimes committed by criminal as well.
Involuntary confessions
Confessions given not out of the rational intellect and free will.
Involuntary confessions may come about as a result of ____________ disabilities, _________ administered by ________, and are not the product of ___________ intellect & _______ will.
intellectual; drugs; police; rational; free
What makes a confession voluntary?
Confession is made freely, without compulsion or inducement.
Compulsion: physical coercion (torture, pain, etc.)
Inducement: psychological coercion (manipulation, promises, etc.)
The burden of proof rest with the ______________ to prove that a confession was _____________, using the standard: the _____________ of ______________.
prosecution; voluntary; preponderance; evidence
Preponderance of Evidence
standard of proof; means that something is likely (51%) the case.
In Townsend v. Sain, (1963), Charles Townsend was found to be in connection to a robbery and murder.
Townsend had been addicted to ___________ since the age of 15, and was under the ___________ during the time of his arrest.
Townsend began experiencing major _______________ pains, and requested some dosage of narcotics to _____________ the pain. A doctor administered Phenobarbital and hyoscine, and after 25 minutes, he _____________ to the crime.
Experiencing more pain, he was given more phenobarbital, and confessed again in another 25 minutes.
Here’s the catch! : the hyoscine had the properties of __________ serum.
The Supreme Court ruled that confessions uttered under the influence of medication w/ the properties of __________ serum, where the defendant was not in a condition to make statements out of ________ ________, is inadmissible.
narcotics; influence
withdrawal; alleviate; confessed
truth
truth; free will
The Voluntariness test basically sets the standard that a confession that was _____________ is ______________, regardless of whether the confession is _________ or _________.
coerced; inadmissible; true; false
In evaluating the _________________ of a suspect’s _____________, the court will consider the ____________ of the ____________ surrounding the confession.
__________ abuse: __________ abuse or threats of abuse by police, or ____________ words.
__________ abuse / manipulation: Threats, rewards, and ___________ of favorable treatment that induce a suspect to confess.
Interrogation: ____________, ___________, and _________ of questioning and the number of officers involved.
Attorney: did officers allow suspect to have _____________ attorney present during interrogation, or ___________ members?
Defendant: _____, , _____________, __________, and _____________ development of the defendant.
Procedural ____________: was there failure by the police to follow ____________ procedure, like issuing the ___________ warning?
voluntariness; confession; totality; circumstances
Physical; physical; angry
Psychological; promises
length; time; place
defense; family
age; education; psychological; emotional
Regularity; regular; Miranda
Criticisms of Voluntariness test:
- Legal Standards: it’s _________ what conduct is and is not ____________ for police officers in conducting ____________.
- Evidence: defendant and police may have very different ____________ of how the defendant was ______________, and judges may find it difficult to _____________ what actually happened.
- Litigation: lack of definite ____________ standards as to what officer are and are not _____________ to do during confessions lead to ___________ in state and federal court.
unclear; permissible; interrogations
telling; treated; reconstruct
legal; permitted; appeals
In Mincey v. Arizona, (1978), the Supreme Court decided, as it has in several past cases, that _____________ confessions are ______________ in court.
Rufus Mincey was injured in the hospital.
A detective officer approached Mincey, warning him that he was under arrest for ____________.
Mincey requested to consult ___________ counsel, which the officer ignored.
During interrogation, Mincey wrote down all answers to the officer’s investigative questions, given that he had a _________ in his throat.
Supreme Court ruled that Mincey’s __________ to __________ was overcome, and (based on the totality of circumstances), he was without _________, ____________, or _________ counsel at his side.
The confession obtained from this interrogation violates Mincey’s _______ ____________ of law.
coerced; inadmissible
murder
legal
tube
will; resist; friends; family; legal; due process
In Arizona v. Fulminante, (1991), Oreste Fulminante was incarcerated for firearms charges.
Fulminante befriended Sarivola in prison.
Sarivola was an undercover, paid federal _____________, who posed as an ex-crime organizer serving time for extortion (already, officers are using ___________).
Sarivola was tasked with finding out information on the _____________ of Fulminante’s daughter.
Sarivola promised to protect Fulminante from people in general population who disliked “________ ________” if he told him what happened to his daughter.
Fulminante confided in Sarivola, saying he sexually assaulted then shot his daughter in the head.
Supreme Court ruled the confession was ______________: the govt used ______________ coercion AND ___________ by striking fear into Fulminante about prisoners who don’t like child killers, and promised _____________ from those individuals. So Fulminante felt compelled to provide Sarivola w/ the information. This violates Fulminante’s due process of law.
informant; trickery
murder
“child killers”
involuntary; psychological; manipulation; protection
In Colorado v. Connelly, (1986), August 18, 1973, Francis Connelly confessed to the murder of Mary Ann Junta to officer Anderson in Denver, Colorado.
Officers placed Connelly under arrest and told him his rights, and that he’s not obligated to say anything, but Connelly insisted it was “____ ________.”
Connelly admitted to being in-and-out of several __________ institutions, and offered to show officers the exact place of the murder.
The destination was consistent with where they found the body of a missing girl in April 1983.
Officers by this point didn’t see any signs of _________ illness.
Couple days later, Connelly after having made several incriminating statements, he wished to suppress the statements made.
Mental Hospital examined him and concluded he was not fit to _________ trial, until reconsidering their opinion in 1984 when they said he was fit.
Dr. Metzner testified at trial that Connelly had been following the ___________ of God, which directed him to _________ money from the bank, fly from _________ to _________, and confess to the murder.
This voice of God, though it could’ve been an interpretation of Connelly’s own ________, severely limited his ability to make ____________ / ______________ decisions.
The Supreme Court ruled that __________ coercion is a significant and necessary component to consider whether or not a defendant’s ___________ are ______________. The police did not ____________ Connelly into telling them anything, in fact Connelly showed the officers the way to the scene of the murder, voluntarily. So the _____________ statements made by Connelly are ____________ into evidence.
“all right”; mental
mental
stand
voice; withdraw; Boston; Denver
guilt; willful; volitional
police; confessions; coerced; coerce; incriminating; admissible
In McNabb v. United States, (1943), 3 residents of the Appalachia mountains were convicted of murdering a ___________ revenue worker who found their illegal __________ production operation.
The residents were placed in a cell and ___________ for hours.
The residents appealed their case, saying the questioning, leading to _______________ confessions violated their basic __th amendment protections against ________ _____________.
Then they were taken before a judicial offer, after they had confessed to the murder, and were subsequently charged.
The Supreme Court ruled using ____________ ______________ (Supreme Court’s power to enforce laws not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution), and held, according to Congressional statutes, criminal defendants are to be taken in front of a __________ _____________ immediately following their arrest. So the _______________ were _______________.
federal; whiskey
interrogated
involuntary; 5th; self incrimination
supervisory authority; judicial officer; confessions; inadmissible
In Mallory v. United States, (1957), Mallory was indicted for rape.
Officers took Mallory to the police station and ___________ for 8 hours straight.
Mallory was finally brought before a judge __________ being _________ and __________.
The Supreme Court ruled in the same way they did during the McNabb ruling. They relied on Section 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which said defendants are to be brought before a ____________, without __________, after being arrested.
The Supreme Court ruled that confessions were derived in an ______________, _____________ manner, and that probable cause cannot be formed __________ interrogating and charging someone. So the confessions were _____________.
interrogated
AFTER; interrogated; charged
judge; delay
extrajudicial; coercive; AFTER; inadmissible
McNabb–Mallory Rule
focuses on delay period between time of defendant’s arrest and when they appear before a magistrate.
must take defendant to magistrate within certain amount of time.
What do critics of the McNabb–Mallory Rule say?
a confession that is VOLUNTARY (voluntarily given) by the defendant should not be considered inadmissible just because the defendant wasn’t brought before a federal judge immediately following the arrest.
Too easy on criminals, let’s them get away with crime.
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Congress’ response to valid claims of critics of McNabb-Mallory Rule.
the confession of a defendant who voluntary confesses to their crime shall not be inadmissible when the confession is given 6 hours immediately after their arrest.
(where a defendant’s voluntary confession comes 6 hours following their arrest, that confession is not inadmissible).
Justice William Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Spano v. New York, (1959), said that not providing a defendant with a ____________ for their _____________ allows the “____________” police precinct ____________ (interrogation) to supplant the trial in court.
lawyer; defense; “private”; trial
In Massiah v. United States, (1964), Winston Massiah and Jesse Colson were indicted for federal narcotics offenses.
Officers requested to place a radio transmission device under the driver seat of the car, and Colson ____________.
Colson engaged in _______________ with Massiah which revealed several _____________ statements.
FBI agent testified to what he heard during the transactions between Colson and Massiah.
The Supreme Court ruled that Massiah had a right to _________ ____________ and to have his __________ determined by a ____________ and ___________. Instead, his ___________ was ascertained through police-orchestrated, ________________ means, and therefore any confessions obtained during this process are __________________.
Main Takeaway: Defendants have the right to ___________ __________ to consult ___________ the __________, and post-_________ phase.
consented
conversation; incriminating
legal counsel; guilt; judge; jury; guilt; extrajudicial; inadmissible
legal counsel; DURING; trial; trial
In Escobedo v. Illinois, (1964), Danny Escobedo was charged with the murder of a 22 yr. old hispanic man.
Escobedo was taken to the police station, ______________, and didn’t say a word other than ‘I’d like to speak to my attorney.’
Police repeatedly asked him questions and he __________ to answer. By court order, he was eventually released.
He was re-arrested 11 days later, where the police attempted again to ____________ him. Again, Escobedo __________ to answer the police’s questions.
When asking to see his attorney, the officers said “He doesn’t want to see you right now.”
Escobedo’s ____________ was at the police station and was blocked from ____________ his client.
The police brought in DeGerlando, an accomplice to the murder, who told Escobedo “I didn’t shoot Manuel, you did!”
Escobedo, replying to DeGerlando, made a number of _______________ statements.
The Supreme Court ruled that 1) even though the police ____________ Escobedo’s right to _________ __________, Escobedo made those ____________ statements voluntarily, so they are admissible in court. 2) (main takeaway), defendants do have the right to consult legal counsel ____________ the _______ phase.
In fact, prohibiting defendants from consulting their counsel during the ______-trial phase makes the __________ phase useless, and most ______________ statements are elicited during the _____-trial phase, when legal counsel is needed ___________!
interrogated
refused
interrogate; refused
attorney; seeing
incriminating
limited; legal counsel; incriminating; BEFORE; trial
pre; trial; incriminating; pre; most
In Malloy v. Hogan, (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendmnt right against _____________ self-incrimination is incorporated into the ______ __________ Clause of the 14th Amendment and applies to the ___________.
compulsory; Due Process; states
Incriminating Information
information that poses “real” / “substantive” threat…
may lead to criminal charge,
OR
might be a chain in a link of evidence leading to prosecution
In Chavez v. Martinez, (2003), the Supreme Court stressed that self incrimination applies ONLY WHEN these statements are submitted during ___________ against you.
Martinez was shot by an officer.
Martinez was taken to the hospital, where he was in immense pain.
Officer admitted that during ____________ he pointed his ________ at Martinez in the hospital.
Martinez made ____________ statements, and sued in civil action because his 5th amendment right against self incrimination was violated.
Court ruled that his 5th amendment rights weren’t violated because those statements hadn’t been submitted as ________________ against him in a criminal case.
trial
interrogation; gun
incriminating
testimony
The right against ___________ ___________ applies to _____________ evidence.
Define __________ Evidence:
The right against self incrimination does NOT apply to _______________ evidence.
Define _____________ Evidence:
Non-Testimonial evidence includes _______, ______________, ____________ examples, ____________ samples, _________, being asked to walk in a ____________ line, being asked to try on ____________, taking ____________etc.
self incrimination; testimonial
Testimonial
[Definition: aka communicative evidence; evidence that is communicative in character]
non-testimonial
Non-Testimonial
[Definition: evidence that is noncommunicative in nature]
DNA; fingerprints; handwriting; urine; hair; straight; clothes; photos
In Schmerber v. California, (1966), petitioner (Shmerber) and a companion were drinking at a tavern and bowling alley.
They left the bowling alley around 12 am, November 12, 1964. Petitioner was driving under the influence.
So he skidded off road, crossed the street in the car, and hit a tree.
Petitioner and companion were escorted to hospital, where they received treatment for their serious injuries.
An officer placed petitioner under __________ at the hospital. The officer ordered a physician to conduct a ______________ analysis of petitioner’s __________. The receipt indicated levels of ______________, which would later be ____________ as evidence in trial.
At first, the petitioner ____________ to the analysis, at the direction of his ____________ (who was also present). The police refused the petitioner’s _____________, and ordered that the withdrawal of blood happen anyway.
Petitioner argued that the admission of the ______________ of the blood-chemical analysis as evidence was unconstitutional as it violated his ___th amendment right against ___________ ___________, ___th amendment right to __________ ___________ (since his counsel was pretty much ignored), and the ___th amendment right against unreasonable ___________ and _____________.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment protects people from the ____________ trying to extort ______________ evidence from them using compulsion, such that any statement given by a defendant should be the result of a free ______________ of ________.
The privilege against ____________ _____________ applies to ____________ evidence.
On the other hand, as established in Holt v. U.S., asking one to try on certain ___________, walk in a ___________ line, taking ____________, ________, _________ samples, __________ samples, and even __________ samples is the compulsion by the govt of __________________ evidence, which is admissible.
The 5th Amendment doesn’t protect against _____________ / ___________ evidence and its usage in trial.
arrest; chemical; blood; intoxication; admitted
objected; counsel; objection
receipt; 5th; self incrimination; 6th; legal counsel; 4th; search; seizure
government; communicative; exercise; will; self incrimination; testimonial
clothing; straight; fingerprints; DNA; hair; urine; blood; non-testimonial; non-testimonial; physical
In Miranda v. Arizona, (1966), Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the rape of an 18 yr old girl.
When brought to the police station, the complaining witness identified Miranda as the perpetrator.
Miranda was taken to Interrogation Room No. 2.
Officers admitted at trial that they did not ________ Miranda, in advance, of his legal __________.
After 2 hours of interrogation, police emerged from the room with a _____________ confession document–an agreement that the confession was voluntary and not the result of ___________ or ___________, that the confessor fully understands his legal ___________.
The Supreme Court ruled that not providing defendants with a proper _____________ of their rights before conducting an ____-__________ police interrogation violates the privilege against ____________ ____________ of the 5th Amendment.
____________ ______________, as Chief Justice Rehnquist put it, are completely incongruent with the protections afforded by the ___th Amendment. They’re held in ____________ rooms, away from __________, __________, and legal ___________, there’s a heavy ______________ presence, and these settings are meant to increase the defendant’s ____________ in his _________, so that the defendant will divulge what the police are trying to get him to say.
Police manuals tell us quite a bit about the methods used during these _____________ interrogations: calling in ____________ witnesses to incriminate the suspect, telling the suspect he has legal rights that don’t even ____________, discrete __________, and using ____________ questioning to _________ down any resistance the suspect might put up. By not providing ___th amendment protections to defendants to combat against the interrogative methods of police, we would rightly say that any ______________ obtained from the defendant is NOT the result of a free exercise of ______.
The Court ruled that criminal defendants are protected by the __th Amendment at all stage of a ____________ proceeding, especially during ___-__________ interrogations. The Supreme Court outlined 4 measures that are to be given to a defendant placed under arrest before being subjected to the ____________ tactics.
1) The defendant must be warned of their right to ___________ ___________.
2) The defendant must be told any utterance can and will be used ____________ him in ___________.
3) Must be informed of his right to an ___________. Defendants are to enjoy the right to an ______________ at ALL _____________ stages during the criminal process. Having an ___________ present ____________ the likelihood that police will try _____________ tactics, and people who don’t know the law are the one’s who need an ___________ most!
4) Defendant must be told that, if he is ___________, the government will provide him with an ____________. The police should not be able to take advantage of a defendant, just because they’re not financially _____________.
warn; rights
signed; compulsion; inducement; rights
forewarning; in-custody; self incrimination
Incommunicado interrogation; 5th; isolated; friends; family; counsel; police; confidence; guilt
incommunicado; fictitious; exist; trickery; heavy; wear; 5th; confession; will
5th; criminal; in-custody; coercive
remain silent
against; court
attorney; attorney; questioning; attorney; decreases; coercive; attorneys
indigent; attorney; affluent
Many individuals ____________ their Miranda rights: this could be based on _________, __________ of ________________, or an ___________ to understand their rights. This subjects suspects to a number of police ___________ during interrogation. Studies indicated that _______% of all cases lead to a ______________.Police hold interrogations in ___________, sparsely ____________ rooms, to make suspect feel like he’s in a _______________ environment. One tactic that police will use is _______________ the suspect during his denial of guilt.
waive; age; lack; education; inability; tactics; 42; confession; small; furnished; cramped; interrupting
Custodial Interrogation
Questioning by officer(s) after being taken into custody where one’s freedom of action is limited in a significant way.
We still need to determine when one is under __________ arrest, and when one is subject to conditions that are the ‘____________ _____________ of a ______________ arrest.’ Does one have the right to be read their Miranda rights in ____________ _______________ arrests?
How do we go about determining that an arrest is _____________ ______________ to a ____________ arrest?
Virtually all interactions between the ____________ and __________ feel somewhat _____________. But requiring that officer’s read a citizen their Miranda rights during ___________ interaction would ____________ on police questioning.
On the other hand, limiting giving Miranda warning to citizens ONLY in clearly _____________ circumstances narrows the number of instances in which those rights may be read.
Stansbury v. California, (1994), established an “___________ _________” that says that whether or not an interrogation is ___________ is based on _____________ circumstances (aka, the ___________ of _____________), not on subjective considerations from the officers or person being questioned.
Simply put, the Stansbury ruling decide that an arrest is based on the _____________ of ______________ where a __________ person would conclude that a person subject to a ___________ arrest or ___________ associated with a formal arrest.
custodial; functional equivalent; custodial; functionally equivalent
functionally equivalent; custodial
police; public; coerced; every; impede
coercive
“objective test” custodial; objective; totality; circumstances
totality; circumstances; reasonable; custodial; custody
Miranda warnings are not triggered when…
- police question potential ____________ at the scene of the ________,
- police question ____________ what they saw at the crime scene,
- people who ______________ confess to a crime, or who __________ call the police to submit a ___________ or other statement.
Custodial interrogations includes questioning by law enforcement after a ____________ ____________, where one is subject to the environment of an _______________ interrogation. In this case, Miranda rights are _____________.
suspects; crime
witnesses
voluntarily; voluntarily; confession
custodial arrests; incommunicado; triggered
In J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011), J.D.B. was called out of his middle school social studies class by an officer and escorted to a school conference room.
J.D.B is 13 years old, in the 7th grade.
Upon entering the conference room, the door was ___________, and J.D.B. was surrounded by 2 ________, an ___________, the __________ ___________, and 2 _____________.
He was not read his ______________ rights.
J.D.B. was interrogated regarding two break-ins that took place 5 days earlier. One of the victims of the break in was his Grandmother who reported to the police that a digital ____________ was stolen.
J.D.B. was also questioned about why another victim found him behind their residence?
J.D.B. said that he was in the neighborhood because he was looking for __________, particularly __________ ____________.
When asked about the digital camera, the officers ___________ the camera to him, which, according to J.D.B.’s grandmother, was _____________ with the one that was stolen.
The Assistant Principal began urging J.D.B. to do the _________ thing.
J.D.B. asked if he would still be punished if he ___________ the stolen property. The investigator told him it would help, but that ‘this thing is going to ___________.’
The investigator mentioned potentially needing to get a ___________ ____________ order against J.D.B., which involves pre-trial ____________ incarceration, to which J.D.B. feared and promptly _____________ to the crime.
Officers THEN told him he has the right to _________ answering their questions. He complied anyways.
J.D.B. faced delinquency charges: 1 count of breaking-and-entering, and 1 count of larceny.
His defense counsel moved to suppress J.D.B.’s incriminating statements, because the setting in which they were gathered amounted to a ______________ interrogation under the _____________ of the ______________ test. And because he wasn’t informed of his ___________ rights beforehand, this violates his ___th Amendment right against self incrimination.
The State Supreme Court ruled that they will not expand the _____________ analysis to include the _________ of the juvenile suspect among the _________ of ___________.
The Supreme Court reversed, ruling in favor of J.D.B., saying age is a ____________ factor of consideration for _____________ analysis, for the purpose of providing suspects w/ their ___________ rights under the 5th.
The Court ruled delineations between ______________ and ____________ in our legal system have been made abundantly clear through _____________ consent for marriage, ___________, etc. Children generally lack the ___________ and ability to understand the world as __________ do.
Where a reasonable ___________ might feel ____________ / not free to leave, a reasonable adult may feel free to leave. The success of police interrogations is especially acute in those instances involving _____________.
So, not considering ________ among the totality of circumstances would be to __________ children altogether of their _______________ against the interrogation methods of police.
closed; officers; investigator; assistant principal; administrators
Miranda
camera
work; lawn-mowing
presented; consistent
right
returned; court
secure; custody; juvenile; admitted; refuse
custodial; totality; circumstances; Miranda; 5th
custody; age; totality; circumstances
relevant; custody; Miranda
children; adults; parental; contracts; judgment; adults
child; compelled; children
age; deprive; safeguards
Public Safety Exception
Officers may ask questions prompted out of reasonable concern for public safety without reading suspects their Miranda rights first.
Interrogation questions asked under the public safety exception are asked concerning _________ ____________ not __________ or ___________.
public safety; guilt; innocence
The reasonable concern for __________ ___________ outweighs the __________ ___________ against self incrimination.
public safety; privacy interests
4 Requirements for Interrogations Based on Public Safety Exception
1) Reasonableness:
- Reasonable need to protect / public.
2) Threat:
- reasonable belief that threat to public safety is immediate
3) Question:
- Questions must be for public safety, not to identify guilt or innocence.
4) Coercion:
- confessions cannot be the result of coercion / overcome suspect’s will to resist.
N.Y. v. Quarles, (1984), established the __________ __________ exception to reading a suspect their 5th Amendment rights, and defines __________ __________ very broadly. This broad definition of _______ ___________ has not provided clear ____________ to lower courts and police, and has been the source of great _____________. What some officers believe constitute a _________ ____________ exception, and subsequently conduct questioning w/o issuing the ___________ warning, some judges believe do not.
public safety; public safety; public safety; guidance; confusion; public safety; Miranda
The Three part __________ _________ is to be stated in __________ terms, and suspects are to be __________ informed of their rights.
Miranda Warning; unequivocal; clearly
In California v. Prysock, (1981), the police were arresting Randall Prysock, whilst his parents were present.
The officer stated his Miranda rights as follows:
- you have the right to talk to a __________ before your are questioned, have him present with you ________ you are being questioned, and all during the questioning.
- You have the right to have your ___________ present, which they are.
- You have the right to have a __________ appointed to you at no ________ of yourself.
The Supreme Court ruled that the reading of the Miranda rights to the juvenile was permissible.
Officers are given _____________ as to how they present the _________ warning. There’s no rigid formula, just so long as officers _________ the 3 parts of the warning (regardless of the orientation in which it is given).
lawyer; while
parents
attorney; cost
flexibility; Miranda; articulate
The test for determining whether one’s Miranda rights are given __________ is the whether they were __________ ____________ (est. Duckworth v. Eagan, (1989).
appropriately; reasonably conveyed
In Davis v. United States, (1994) Navy Seal Robert Davis was suspected of murdering another navy seal.
He was interviewed by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which warned him of his __________ rights.
Davis initially ___________ his right to __________ _________.
During questioning, the Investigative Service raised one question to which Davis replied “___________ I should have a lawyer present.”
Agents of the investigative service clarified that they will not pursue investigation until they understand that Davis actually wants __________ _____________, or that he’s just making a _____________ about _________ __________.
Davis then replied, “____, I don’t want legal counsel.”
After further questioning, Davis interrupted again again “I __________ I should have ________ ___________ present.”
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that an individual must state their desire to have ___________ ___________ present “__________ ____________ such that a reasonable police officer would conclude that the individual is requesting to have an ___________ present.”
This ruling confirms that officers can continue to interrogate despite an individual’s ______________ statements as to whether or not they wish to have an _____________ present. Officers are entitled to but are not required to ask __________ questions. It’s actually advised that they don’t because it would seem like trying to ____________ (put words in the mouth of) the suspect, and would be construed as the police potentially trying ____________ the suspect to ___________ his right to an attorney.
Miranda
waived; legal counsel
Maybe
legal counsel; statement; legal counsel
No
think; legal counsel
legal counsel
sufficiently clearly
attorney
ambiguous; attorney; clarifying; interpret; persuade; waive
Qualified Invocation
“I am willing to talk until I think I need a lawyer. I don’t need one right now.*
Voluntary, Willing, Intelligent Waiver
When one freely waives a right,
understand the nature of the right being abandoned,
and understand the consequences.
___________, __________, and____________ waivers are based on the ____________ of _________________.
Voluntary; intelligent; willing; totality; circumstances
What standard of proof must the prosecution meet in proving the _______________ of a ____________, ____________, and ____________ waiver, and what case established it?
Answer…
voluntariness; voluntary; willing; intelligent
Answer: Colorado v. Connelly, (1986)
Express Waiver
Affirmative relinquishment of rights.
Implied Waiver
When suspects engage in a course of conduct indicating a waiver.
In Oregon v. Elstad, (1985), police arrived at the home of 18 year old Michael James Elstad. The police casually ______________ Elstad there, at his home, regarding a potential burglary where Elstad gave _____________, ____________ statements. Elstad was arrested and taken to police headquarters where he was given the ____________ warning. Elstad continue to make confessions during the post-__________ warning interrogation.
The Supreme Court ruled that any ______________ made from the _________ interrogation at Elstad’s home were inadmissible: He wasn’t read his ___________ warning. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean _____________ obtained after the officers issued the ___________ warning were tainted, and so were admissible.
The Supreme Court ruled that a suspect who gives ___________, ___________ confessions do not automatically waive their right (to silence) ____________ the Miranda warning is issued to them.
interrogated; voluntary; incriminating; Miranda; Miranda
confession; first; Miranda; confessions; Miranda
unwarned; uncoerced; AFTER
Question First Warn Later
police tactic of obtaining confessions before suspect potentially invokes right to silence which prevents officers from obtaining a confession.
Officers question suspects first, without warning of Miranda Rights.
Officer’s realize these confessions are inadmissible, and so double back, interrogating the suspect again, only this time reading the Miranda rights to them first to gain the same confessions, only this time they’ll be admissible.
In Missouri v. Seibert, (2004), Patrice Seibert’s son Jonathan died in his sleep from cerebral palsy. Seibert was afraid she would be punished on charges of neglect if the bedsores on Jonathan’s body were seen by authorities and medical examiners.
Seibert made a pact with her other sons, and their friends to _____________ Jonathan’s body in their mobile home. Seibert left Donald Rector, a mentally challenged young boy living with the Seibert’s with Jonathan in the mobile home so that the picture could be painted that Donald was ____________ after Jonathan.
5 days later, Seibert was arrested at the hospital where Donald was receiving treatment for his burns.
Officer Hanrahan conducted the interrogation at police headquarters (having recently taken orders on how to conduct the interrogation).
Hanrahan did _______ formally warn Seibert of her _____________ rights, and jumped right into the questioning for 30 - 45 minutes. Seibert voluntarily made _______________ statements, confessed to the plan and said she intended for Donald “to die his sleep” in the mobile home alongside deceased Jonathan.
Hanrahan suggested a break.
When returning, she turned on the recording ___________ , and indicated to Seibert that they should ‘______ ____ where they left off’ (giving the impression of a _____________ of the first interrogation), but this time formally warned Seibert of her _____________rights.
Seibert waived her rights.
The Supreme Court reviewed its ruling in Elstad, and ruled that there is a problem with the ‘___________ _________ _______ _________’ approach adopted by police. Suspects aren’t told that the statements they divulge during first interrogation are not ______________.
The Court said the question is whether it would be reasonable to suppose that by giving suspects a warning, the warning would function effectively in advising suspects that they had a real choice about giving an admissible statement.
The Court said Police tactics were employed with ‘______________ skill’ intended to undermine Miranda warnings.
This “_____________ _______” approach is deemed highly unethical and strongly disfavored by courts.
incinerate; looking
NOT; Miranda; incriminating
camera; pick up; continuation; Miranda
question first warn later; admissible
psychological skill
softening up
Scrupulously honored test
test in cases where officers ask suspects about separate crimes than the one’s for which they were originally arrested.
Police are allowed to ask question to defendant about a different crime (different in time, place, & nature) after
- waiting a reasonable period of time
- and giving defendant a fresh set of Miranda warnings.
Initiation Test
determines whether someone who invokes their right to legal counsel can be questioned / interrogated again by the police.
In Maryland v. Shatzer, (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that for a defendant, who initially __________ their legal right to __________ ___________ in pretrial custody, who is released for a reasonable period of time back into his/her ____________ life, we wouldn’t say their change in heart to now ___________ their right to __________ __________ is the result of police _____________. They had time between their release and second interrogation to calculate their _________ interest in the presence of _________, ___________, and __________ ____________.
In this ruling, the Court established the ________ in _________ rule.
waive; legal counsel; normal; invoke; legal counsel; custody; self; family; friends; legal counsel
break; custody
Break in custody rule
A suspects may be interrogated by officers after 14 days of having been released from custody.
If a suspect invokes the right to __________ ____________ during an interrogation, then _____________ must ___________ until the counsel is present alongside his client __________ the time of questioning, regardless of whether or not a suspect has already ___________ with his attorney.
legal counsel; interrogation; cease; during; consulted
Interrogation
statements on part of the police that are used to make suspects incriminate themselves.
Two Elements of Interrogation
- Express Questioning
- Functional Equivalent to Express Questioning
Express Questioning
Asking direct question
(meant to elicit an incriminating statement).
Functional Equivalent to Express Questioning
words / actions by police that police should know are reasonably likely to lead to a incriminating statements.
In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980),
Jan. 12, 1975, taxicab driver was killed; ____________ bullet wound found in the back of his head, laying in shallow grave.
Jan. 17, 1975, taxi driver calls police to report armed robbery from a guy with a sawed-off _____________.
Driver said the assailant told him to drop him off near Providence, Rhode Island, college campus in Mt. Pleasant.
Driver went to police station to give written statement, and ___________ the suspect twice after being shown photographs.
Patrolmen headed over to Mt. Pleasant. During patrol, respondent was standing in middle of the road. Patrolmen stopped the car.
Respondent walked ____________ the car. Patrolmen placed respondent under arrest and warned him of his ______________ rights.
Back-up police officers, the ___________, and ___________ Leyden showed up who each also reminded respondent of ______________ rights. Respondent said he understood rights and wanted to speak with a __________________.
____________ Leyden put the 3 patrolmen in charge of taking respondent back to police station. He told them not to _____________ him or do anything ____________ to respondent.
On route to police station, two of the patrolmen initiated conversation between themselves:
- Patrolmen Gleckman: There’s alot of ___________ kids in this area, especially since there’s a school for the _____________. It’d be a shame if any of those kids found a weapon with bullet shells and __________ themselves.
- Patrolmen McKenna: Yeah, it’s important we find that weapon to ensure no one is hurt.
Respondent interjected saying they should turn the squad car around and taken him back to the sight of the crime, and he’ll _______________ where the weapon was.
Officers returned to the crime scene, the _____________ warned respondent of his _____________ rights again, and respondent said he understood and wanted to get the weapon out of the reach of the kids.
The weapon was admitted into evidence during the trial court, and court found respondent guilty.
The question was whether the police’s actions in the squad car amounted to an illegal interrogation after respondent expressed want to speak to a lawyer.
The Supreme Court ruled that the officers’ actions were reasonable.
The 5th amendment defines ____________ interrogation as interrogating suspects in custody where suspects freedom of ____________ is limited in a significant way.
Miranda recognizes _____________ questioning and the __________ _____________ of ___________ questioning. The latter includes any _________ or _____________ by police that the police should know are ____________ likely to elicit ______________ statements from suspects.
The Court ruled that the officers had no way of knowing that their conversation would ______________ / _____________ the moral _____________ of the respondent.
(The dissent, basically said the conversation was a form of ____________ pressure, and they couldn’t think of a more clear example of trying to appeal to someone’s morality than talking not just about ___________, but ____________ who would potentially _________ themselves with the weapon. The only difference between what the officers did and a real interrogation is leaving a ___________ mark off of the end of every sentence.)
shotgun
shotgun
identified
toward; Miranda
Sergeant; Captain; Miranda; lawyer
Captain; question; coercive
handicapped; handicapped; hurt
identify
Captain; Miranda
custodial; action
express; functional equivalent; express; words; actions; reasonably; elicit
appeal; burden; conscience
psychological; kids; kids; hurt; question
Defendants do not have an ____________ right to an attorney at _____ stages of the trial.
Defendants have the right to an attorney during ___________ ___________, __________ __________, ___________/ ___________, and ____________.
formal charging; preliminary hearing; indictment/information; arraignment
