Confessions Flashcards
Voluntary - self-incriminating statement admissibility
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
Involuntary only if there is some official compulsion
Harmless error test - involuntary
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
Sixth Amendment - when the right starts
Guarantees the right to the assistances of counsel in all criminal proceedings
- felony
- misdemeanor trials when imprisonment is actually imposed or when a suspended jail sentence is imposed
This includes all critical stages of a prosecution after judicial proceedings have begun - after formal charges has been filed
- arraignment
- post-charge lineups
- appeals as a matter of right
- appeals of guilty pleas
And ends for post-conviction proceedings
What Sixth Amendment prohibits
The 6th amend 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
Fifth vs Sixth Amend right to counsel
Sixth amendment only applies after formal proceedings have begun
So for a defendant who is arrested but not yet charged does not have a sixth amendment right to counsel, but does have a fifth amendment right under Miranda
6th Amendment right and preliminary hearings
Sixth amendment right when it is a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause to prosecute
But does not apply to prelim hearings to determine PC to detain
Sixth amendment right and trial recesses
Right applies to overnight recesses during trial, but not during brief recesses during the defendant’s testimony at trial
Sixth amendment right and lineups
Right applies to post-charge line ups, but not to pre charge or investigative line ups
Sixth amendment right and appeals
Applies to appeals as a matter of right and appeals of guilty pleas
But does not apply to discretionary appeals
Sixth Amendment - offense specific
The Sixth Amendment is offense specific
So even if the rights have attached regarding the charge for which they are being held, the defendant may be questioned regarding unrelated, uncharged offenses without violating the sixth amendment right to counsel
Two offenses are considered different if each requires proof of an additional element that the other crime does not require
Waive of Sixth Amendment
The sixth amendment right to counsel may be waived
Waiver must be knowing and voluntary
Waiver does not necessarily require the presence of counsel
Remedy for depravation of counsel - 6th amendment
At nontrivial proceedings, 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 automatic reversal of the conviction, even without a showing of specific unfairness in the proceedings
Similarly, erroneous disqualification of privately retained counsel at trial results in automatic reversal
Statement obtained in violation of 6th amend right - admissibility
A statement obtained in violation of a defendant’s 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 rule that applies to Miranda violations
Miranda warnings
Required when a suspect is in custodial interrogation
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:
- right to remain silent
- anything said can be used against them
- right to presence of attorney, and
- if cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed
Failure to give warnings violates a defendant’s fifth amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination
When Miranda warnings are required
Anyone in the custody of the government and accused of a crime must be given Miranda warnings prior to the interrogation by the police
Generally, necessarily only if the detainee knows that they are being interrogated by a government agent
- not needed when the detainee is being interrogated by an informant whom defendant does not know is working for the police
Two core reqs - custody and interrogation
Miranda and grand jury hearing
Miranda requirements do not apply to an uncharged witness testifying before a grand jury
Even if the witness was compelled by subpoena to be there
Whether custody exists - Miranda
Two step process:
1) freedom of movement test: whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel that they were free to terminate the interrogation and leave
- All of circumstances surrounding the interrogation must be considered
2) if individuals freedom of movement was curtailed, next consider whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda
- more a setting resembles a traditional arrest, more likely to be considered custody
Interrogation requirement - Miranda
Any words or conduct by the police that they should know would likely elicit an incriminating response from the detainee
So, not required before spontaneous statements made by the detainee
Routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation
Options after receiving Miranda warnings
Detainee can
- do nothing
- waive their Miranda rights
- assert the right to remain silent, or
- assert the right to consult with an attorney
Detainee does not respond to Miranda warnings
Court will not presume a waiver, but neither will the court presume that the detainee has asserted a right to remain silent or to consult with an attorney
Waive miranda rights
To be a valid waiver, the gov must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowing and voluntary
Look at totality of the circumstances in determining whether knowing and voluntary
If gov can show that detainee received Miranda warnings and then chose to answer questions, probably sufficient that waived
Invoking right to remain silent
To be effective, the detainee’s indication that they wish to remain silent must be explicit, unambiguous, and unequivocal
- failure to answer does not constitute an invocation of right to remain silent
If indicates that they wish to remain silent, police must honor and not badger the detainee
Invoke right to remain silent and reinitiate questioning
Police can reinitiate questioning when the police waited a significant amount of time after the detainee invoked right to remain silent, the detainee was re-mirandized, and the questions were limited to a crime that was not the subject of the earlier questioning
Invocation of right to counsel - Miranda
If the detainee unambiguously indicates that they wish to speak to counsel, all questioning must cease until counsel has been provided
- must be specific
Unless the detainee
- then waives their right to counsel (by reinitiating questioning), or
- is released from the custodial interrogation back to their normal life and 14 days have passed since release
Counsel’s presence - Miranda warnings
Allowing detainee to consult and then resume interrogation after counsel left generally does not satisfy right
Counsel must be present during the interrogation unless the detainee has waived the right
Effect of Miranda violation generally
Generally, evidence obtained in violation of the Miranda rules is inadmissible at trial under the exclusionary rule
Statements obtained in violation of the Miranda rules may be used to impeach the defendant’s trial testimony, but may not be used as evidence of guilt
Question first, warn later nature of questioning - Miranda
If police obtain a confession without giving Miranda, and then give Miranda and obtain a subsequent confession:
Subsequent confession will be inadmissible if the question first, warn later nature of the questioning was intentional
- that it was used as a scheme to get around Miranda reqs
However, a subsequent valid confession may be admissible if the original unwarned questioning seemed unplanned and the failure to give Miranda warnings seemed inadvertent
Miranda violation and non testimonial evidence found from it
If the police fail to give Miranda warnings and during interrogation a detainee gives the police information that leads to non testimonial evidence, the evidence will be suppressed if the failure was purposeful
But if the failure was not purposeful, the evidence probably will not be suppressed
Public safety exception to Miranda warnings
Interrogation without Miranda warnings are allowed when it is reasonably promoted by a concern for public safety
Sixth Amendment right to counsel pre trial
Right to counsel before trial is very limited and does not cover procedures where the defendant is not personally confronted by the witness against them
Does not have a right to counsel at photo IDs or when police take physical evidence
Pretrial Identification and due process
A defendant can attack an identification as denying due process if the identification is unnecessarily suggestive and there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification
But cannot refuse to participate in a lineup on the basis of fifth amendment right against compelled self-incrimination because does not involve compulsion to give testimonial evidence
Remedy for unconstitutional identifications
Remedy for unconstitutional identifications is exclusion of the in-court identification
But witness may make an in-court identification despite the existence of an unconstitutional pretrial identification if the in-court identification has an independent source
- like an opportunity to observe at the time of the crime
Admissibility of identification evidence - hearing
Should be determined at a suppression hearing in the absence of the jury, but expulsion of the jury is not constitutionally required
Government bears burden of proving that
- counsel was present
- accused waived counsel, or
- there is an independent source for the in-court identification
Defendant must prove an alleged due process violation
