Confessions Flashcards
What are the three constitutional challenges that can be brought to exclude a confession?
There are three federal constitutional challenges that can be brought to exclude a confession:
1) 14th Amendment Due Process Clause
2) 6th Amendment Right to Counsel
3) 5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine
Under the New York Constitution, how can a defendant challenge a confession?
Defendants can challenge a confession under the New York’s “indelible” right to counsel, which derives from the 6th Amendment of the state.
What is the standard for excluding a confession under the Due Process Clause?
Involuntariness, which means that the confession is the product of police** coercion that overbears the suspect’s will.
What is the scope of the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment?
This is an express constitutional guarantee. It attaches when the defendant is formally charged. It applies at all “critical stages” of the prosecution that take place after the filing of formal charges, including arraignment, probable cause hearings, police interrogation, and plea bargaining. This right is offense specific, meaning it applies only to the crimes with which a defendant is formally charged. It provides no protection for uncounseled interrogation for other uncharged criminal activity.
Incriminating statements obtained from the defendant by law enforcement about charged offenses violate the 6th Amendment if those statements are deliberately elicited and the defendant did not *knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily *waive his right to have his attorney present.
What is the scope of New York’s “indelible” right to counsel?
New York’s right to counsel, referred to as the “indelible” right to counsel, provides greater protection than the 6th Amendment. The indelible right to counsel attaches not only at formal charging, but also whenever there is a significant judicial activity before filing of an accusatory instrument such that a defendant may benefit from the presence of counsel. Accordingly, if a defendant is taken into custody for questioning on a charge and the police are aware that he is represented by counsel on that charge, they may not question him about that charge or any other matter without his attorney present. Finally, if a defendant is represented by counsel, waiver of the indelible right to counsel must take place in the presence of the attorney.
What are the four core Miranda warnings?
1) the right to remain silent
2) anything you say can and will be *used against you *in a court of law
3) the right to an attorney
4) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
When are *Miranda *warnings necessary?
There are two core requirements:
1) Custody: a two-part, totality of the circumstances test is used to determine if a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes.
a) A reasonable person would have felt that she was not at liberty to end the interrogation and leave AND
b) the environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the station-house questioning at issue in Miranda.
Age and Custody: 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.
2) Interrogation: The 5th Amendment *Miranda *doctrine defines interrogation as any conduct the police knew or should have known was likely to elicit an incriminating response.
What are the exceptions to Miranda warnings?
Spontaneous Statements: **Miranda does not apply to incriminating statements made spontaneously, since they are not the product of interrogation
“Public Safety” Exception: If custodial interrogation is prompted by an immediate concern for public safety, *Miranda *warnings are unneccessary and any incriminating statements are admissible against the suspect.
What does a police officer have to do to ensure a statement obtained through custodial interrogation admissable?
1) “Reasonably convey” to the suspect his or her core *Miranda *rights AND
2) thereafter obtains a valid waiver of a suspect’s Miranda rights to silence and counsel.
How is a valid Miranda waiver obtained? What is the NY distrinction reegarding parents and children?
There are two requirements:
1) “Knowing and Intelligent”: A Miranda waiver is “knowing and intelligent” if the suspect understands:
a) the nature of the rights; and
b) the consequences of abandoning them.
2) Voluntary: A Miranda waiver is voluntary if it is not the product of police coercion.
New York’s parent/child rule: If the police use deception or concealment to keep a parent away from a child who is being interrogated, the child’s waiver may be deemed invalid.
How is a Miranda waiver executed? Who bears the burden of proving that there was a valid waiver and what is the standard?
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 a suspect has received and understood his Miranda rights, he waives his right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.
Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid waiver of a suspect’s Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence.
How does a suspect invoke his or her Miranda rights?
Invoking the right to remain silent: Suspects must unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent.
Once the suspects invoke the right to remain silent, police officers must “scruplously honor” the invocation. This means, at the very least, that the police cannot badger a suspect into talking; in addition police detectives must wait a significant period of time before reinitiating questioning *and *must first obtain a valid Miranda waiver.
Invoking the right to counsel: the request for counsel must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer in the same situation would understand the statement to be a request for counsel.
Once a suspect asks for counsel, all interrogation must case unless intiated by the suspect.
The 5th Amendment right to counse is not offense-specific; therefore, interrogation following a request for counsel under Miranda is prohibited as to all topics, outside the presence of the suspect’s attorney.
The request for counsel expires 14 days after a suspect is released from custody; a waiver of the *Miranda *right to counsel obtained after this period is valid, provided it is *knowing, intelligent, *and voluntary.
What are the limitations on evidentiary exclusion as applied to *Miranda *violations?
1) Incriminating statements obtained in violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights are inadmissible in the prosecutor’s case-in-chief, but may be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony on cross-examination.
2) Failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require the supression of the physical fruits of incriminating statements, provided the statements are voluntary.
3) If a statement is inadmissible due to a *Miranda violation, subsequent incriminating statements made after obtaining a Miranda *waiver are admissible, provided the initial non-Mirandized statement was not obtained through the use of inherently coercive police tactics or methods, offensive to due process.
4) If testimonial evidence is admitted that should have been exclused, the guilty verdict will only stand if the government can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless because the defendant would have been convicted **without the tainted evidence. **
(Standard applies to physical evidence admitted under the 4th Amendment)
