Confessions Flashcards
A man and a woman were arrested and charged with a series of armed robberies. Each suspect was given Miranda warnings, and different interrogation teams questioned each suspect separately. Upon being questioned, the man told the police, “I’m not going to talk until I see a lawyer.” An officer responded, “You might want to reconsider, because your partner has already confessed, and she’s implicated you in the crimes.” The man then told the police that he wanted to talk to the woman privately. The police escorted the man to the woman’s cell, locked him in with her, and left. Unbeknownst to either of them, the police had bugged the woman’s cell and recorded both the man and the woman making self-incriminating statements during their meeting. The man made no further statements to the police on advice of counsel, whom he called immediately after his conversation with the woman. The man was put on trial first, and the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence tapes of the bugged conversation between the man and the woman. The defense made a motion to suppress the evidence.
Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
The conversation should be suppressed because the police conduct violated the man’s 6th Amend right to counsel. 6th Amend provides that in all criminal prosecutions a defendant has a right to the assistance of counsel at all critical stages after formal proceedings have begun. For 6th Amend purposes, a criminal prosecution begins when adversary judicial proceedings have commenced, such as the filing of formal charges in this case. Because custodial interrogation is a critical stage of prosecution, the 6th Amend is violated by post-charge interrogation unless the defendant has waived his right to counsel. Interrogation includes not only direct questioning, but also any other conduct by the police intended to elicit a response. The police conduct here (telling the man that the woman had implicated him and then bugging the conversation) constitutes prohibited interrogation.
T/F: If an involuntary confession is admitted into evidence, the harmless error test applies.
True. Under this test, the conviction need not be overturned if there is other overwhelming evidence of guilt.
T/F: There is no violation of the 6th Amend right to counsel before formal proceedings have begun.
True. The 6th Amend right to counsel guarantees the right to counsel in all criminal proceedings.
When does D have a 6th Amend right to counsel?
- custodial police interrogation
- post-indictment interrogation
- preliminary hearings to determine probable cause to prosecute
- arraignment
- post-charge line-up
- felony trials and misdemeanor trials with incarceration
- guilty pleas
- sentencing hearings
- appeals
When does D have a 5th Amend right to counsel?
When D is arrested but has not been charged.
T/F: At non-trial proceedings (e.g. post-indictment interrogations), the harmless error rule applies to deprivations of counsel.
True. But if at trial, failure to provide counsel results in automatic reversal of the conviction.
What is interrogation? (Hint: 5th Amend, police)
Police’s (or police’s agent’s) words or conduct likely to elicit a response in D
What if D does nothing in response to Miranda warnings?
Police may continue to question D. There is no presumption of waiver of these rights or presumption that D is asserting right to counsel or remain silent.
T/F: If police fail to give Miranda warnings and during interrogation a detainee gives police info that leads to non-testimonial evidence, the evidence will be suppressed if the failure was purposeful BUT if not purposeful the evidence probably will not be suppressed.
True.
T/F: Suspect has right to presence of an attorney at any post-charge lineup or showup.
True.
A woman was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and questioned about an armed robbery. After she asked to speak with an attorney, the police stopped questioning her about the robbery. Several hours later, the police gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings and began to question her about a different robbery. She did not repeat her request for an attorney and instead made several incriminating statements about the robbery. At the woman’s trial for the robbery for which she made incriminating statements, the prosecution seeks to have her statements introduced into evidence.
If the woman’s attorney objects on appropriate grounds, how should the court rule?
The court should sustain the objection because the police did not honor the woman’s request for an attorney. At any time prior to or during a custodial interrogation, the accused may invoke a Miranda (Fifth Amendment) right to counsel. If the accused invokes this right, all questioning must cease until the accused is provided with an attorney or initiates further questioning himself. Thus, the police questioning of the woman about the robbery was improper, and she can have her statements excluded.
- accused does not need to reassert the right to an attorney; all questioning must stop until the accused is provided an attorney or resumes the questioning herself.
The defendant was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and charged with burglary. At the police station, he telephoned his mother and asked her to come to the station to post bail. Instead, his mother immediately called the family attorney. In the meantime, the police had begun questioning the defendant. Although he never told the police to stop the questioning, his answers were at first vague or clearly unresponsive. During the course of the questioning, the family attorney phoned the station and told the police that she had been hired to represent the defendant and would be there in half an hour. The police did not inform the defendant of the attorney’s call. Ten minutes later, the defendant admitted to committing the burglary, and signed a statement to that effect prepared by the police. The attorney arrived a few minutes later and advised the defendant to remain silent, but he told her that he had already signed a confession.
How should the court rule on the attorney’s pretrial motion to exclude the confession as evidence at trial?
A - Grant the motion, because the police had a duty to inform the defendant that an attorney was coming to represent him.
B - Grant the motion, because the defendant has been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
C - Deny the motion, because the defendant’s statement admitting the crime was voluntary.
D - Deny the motion, because the defendant waived his Miranda rights.
The defendant’s confession should be admitted because he waived his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination after receiving Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona requires that a person in custody be informed of his right to remain silent and his right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. A suspect may subsequently waive his rights by making a confession, as long as the waiver was knowing and voluntary. In this case, the defendant received proper Miranda warnings, and there is no indication that he did not understand what his rights were. Although his answers during questioning were initially unresponsive, he never asked for an attorney or indicated that he wished to remain silent, and he voluntarily confessed after a relatively short period of interrogation. Hence, he validly waived his Miranda rights.
(A) is incorrect because the police have no duty to inform the defendant that an attorney is attempting to see him. The defendant’s ignorance of his attorney’s efforts has no bearing on whether he made a knowing waiver of his Miranda rights.
