Confessions And Admission

Question 1

US v. Patane (2004)

Answer 1

Physical evidence obtained by a Miranda defective voluntary statement is admissible.

Question 2

People v. Thomas (2011)

Answer 2

Police Officers may sufficiently attenuate an initial display of force, used to effect an investigative stop, so that no Miranda warnings are required when the questions are asked.

Question 3

Howes v. Fields (2012)

Answer 3

Prison does not alway mean custodu for Miranda purposes

Question 4

Maryland v. Shazter (Miranda Custody) (2010)

Answer 4

A prisoner is not in custody for Miranda purposes because he can “reacclimate to his normal life..shake off the coercive effects of his prior custody.”

Question 5

Florida v. Powell (2010)

Answer 5

The four warnings Miranda requires are invariable, but this court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed.

Question 6

Kansas v. Ventris (2009)

Answer 6

A defendant’s statement taken in violation of the defendant’s 6th Amendment rights can be used for impeachment purposes.

Question 7

Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)

Answer 7

Defendant may waive his right to counse just like he waives his 5th Amendment rights, even if he has already been appointed counsel

Question 8

Maryland v. Shazter (2009) Break in Custody

Answer 8

If there is a 14 day break in custody, that is sufficient not to break 6th Amendment rights

Question 9

People v. Lessie (2010)

Answer 9

Request to speak to parent is not an invocation of right to counsel

Question 10

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)

Answer 10

Implied waiver by answering questions

Question 11

Bobby v. Dixon (2011)

Answer 11

If there was no incriminating statements made in first defective Miranda statement, then second Mirandized statement is fine.

Question 12

People v. Williams (2010)

Answer 12

Court found that the waiver was knowing and intelligent when defendant began speaking to detectives, even though he initially stated he was wanted a lawyer. This was because detectives informed defendant that it would take two days to get a lawyer, and did he want to wait the two days.

Question 13

Colorado v. Spring (1987)

Answer 13

Failure to inform the defendant of the subject matter has no bearing on whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent

Question 14

Moran v. Burbine (1986)

Answer 14

Events outside of the interrogation, like your lawyer trying to contact you, has no bearing on whether the waiver is knowing and intelligent