Confessions Flashcards
Three Constitutional Challenges to Exclude a Confession
1) Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
2) Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
3) Fifth Amendment Miranda Doctrine
Fourteenth Amendment Voluntariness
For a self incriminating statement to be admissible under the due process clause, it must be voluntary, as determined by the totality of the circumstances.
A statement is involuntary only if it is the product of police compulsion that overbears the suspect’s will.
NOTE – if an involuntary confession is admitted into evidence, the harmless error test applies - the conviction need not be overturned if there is other overwhelming evidence of guilt
GA Confession Conviction
In GA, a confession alone, uncorroborated by any other evidence, cannot justify a conviction
Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
The sixth amendment guarantees the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal proceedings.
It applies at the critical stages of a prosecution after judicial proceedings have begun (when formal charges has been filed)
It prohibits the police from deliberately eliciting an incriminating statement from a defendant outside the presence of counsel after the defendant has been charged unless the defendant has waived their right to counsel.
NOTE – This is offense specific
Stages when the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Applies
–Post-indictment interrogation, whether or not custodial
–Preliminary hearings to determine probable cause to prosecute
–Arraignment
–Post-Charge Lineups
–Guilty plea and sentencing
–Felony Trials
–Misdemeanor trials when imprisonment is actually imposed or when a suspended jail sentence is imposed
–Overnight recesses during trial
–Appeals as a matter of right
–Appeals of guilty pleas
Stages when the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Does Not Apply
–Blood Sampling
–Taking of handwriting or voice exemplars
–Precharge or investigative lineups
–Photo identifications
–Preliminary hearings to determine probable cause to detain
–Brief recesses during the defendant’s testimony at trial
–Discretionary appeal
–Parole and probation revocation proceedings
–Post-Conviction Proceedings
Offense Specific (6th Amendment)
The sixth amendment right to counsel applies only to the crimes which the defendant is formally charged. It provides no protection for uncounseled interrogation for other uncharged criminal activity.
Even when a defendant’s sixth amendment rights have attached regarding a charge for which they are being held, the defendant may be questioned regarding unrelated, uncharged offenses without violating the sixth amendment (watch for fifth though)
Two offenses will be considered different if each requires proof of an additional element that the other crime does not.
Standard and Waiver (sixth amendment)
Incriminating statements obtained from the defendant by law enforcement about charged offenses violate the sixth amendment if those statements are deliberately elicited and the defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the right to have an attorney present.
Remedy for Violations of Sixth Amendment
At nontrial proceedings (such as post-indictment interrogations), the harmless error rule applies to deprivations of counsel.
If the defendant was entitled to a lawyer at trial, the failure to provide counsel results in an automatic reversal of the conviction, even without a showing of specific unfairness in the proceedings.
Erroneous disqualification of privately retained counsel at trial results in automatic reversal.
Impeachment (sixth amendment)
A statement obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, while not admissible in the prosecution’s case in chief, may be used to impeach the defendant’s contrary trial testimony. (similar to miranda violations)
Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Compelled Self Incrimination
The Miranda Rights are implied rights grounded in the self incrimination clause of the fifth amendment
Miranda Warnings
For an admission or confession to be admissible under the fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination, a person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be informed that:
1) the person has a right to remain silent;
2) Anything the person says can be used against them in a court of law;
3) the person has a right to presence of an attorney;
4) if the person cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them if they so desire
The warning need not be verbatim so long as the substance is conveyed
When are Miranda Warnings Required
Miranda warnings are required when a suspect is in custodial interrogation. Anyone in the custody of the government and accused of a crime must be given miranda warnings prior to interrogation by the police.
Custody Requirement (Miranda)
A two part, totality of the circumstances test is used to determine if a suspect is in custody for the purpose of Miranda:
1) whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel free to terminate the interrogation and leave (all circumstances surrounding the interrogation must be considered)
2) If an individual’s freedom of movement is curtailed, the court must determine whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda. (more restrained, more likely to be in custody)
Age and Custody (Miranda)
While the custody inquiry is objective, it should take account of a juvenile suspect’s age, where age is relevant and when the officer knew or should have been aware of a child’s age at the time of questioning.
Interrogation Requirement (Miranda)
Interrogation includes any words or conduct by the police that they should know would likely elicit an incriminating response from a suspect.
Miranda warnings are not required before spontaneous statements made by detainees since they are not a product of interrogation.
NOTE – routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation
Government Conduct
Generally, miranda warnings are necessary only if the detainee knows they are being interrogated by a government agent.
The warnings are not necessary when the detainee is being interrogated by an informant whom the defendant does not know is working for the police.
Public Safety Exception (Miranda)
If a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation, the miranda doctrine applies
However, if custodial interrogation is prompted by an immediate concern for public safety, Miranda warnings are unnecessary and any incriminating statements are admissible against the suspect
(Think of Boston Marathon Bomber example)
Respecting Miranda
Unless the public safety exception applies, a suspects testimonial responses obtained through custodial interrogation are admissible, provided the officer
1) reasonably conveys to the suspect the core miranda rights; and
2) thereafter obtains a valid waiver of a suspect’s miranda rights to silence and counsel
Valid Waiver (Miranda)
To validly waive miranda rights, the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowingly and voluntary.
Knowingly - it is knowing and intelligent if the suspect understands (1) the nature of the rights and (2) the consequences of abandoning them
Voluntary - waiver is voluntary if it is not the product of police coercion
Executing the Waiver
A Miranda waiver need not be express. It may be implied by a course of conduct that indicates the desire to speak with police interrogators.
If the suspect has received and understood their Miranda rights, the suspect waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.
Waiver Burden of Proof (Miranda)
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid waiver of a suspect’s Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence.
Invoking the Right to Remain Silent
To be effective, the suspect’s indication that they wish to remain silent must be explicit, unambiguous, and unequivocal.
If the suspect indicates they wish to remain silent, the police must scrupulously honor this request.
Police must wait a significant period of time before reinitiating contact and seeking a valid waiver of Miranda Rights.
Invoking the Right to Counsel
The request for counsel must be unambiguous - it must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable police officer in the same situation would understand the statement to be a request for counsel.
Once a suspect asks for counsel, all interrogation must cease unless initiated by the suspect.
