Confessions and Other Self-Incriminating Statements (5th/6th Amendment) Flashcards
Culombe v. Connecticut
Physical brutality, threats of physical brutality are such convincingly terror-arousing incidents
Brown v. Mississippi
State action, whether through one agency or another, shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the baes of all our civil and political institutions
Watts v. Indiana
Whether the conduct breaks the will to conceal or lie, or even breaks the will to stand by the truth
Brooks v. Florida
Coercion- solitary confinement, restricted diet, limited water, naked
Beecher v. Alabama
Coercion- morphine injections, treatment withheld, gave oral statement
Spano v. New York
Coercion- overborne by official pressure, fatigue, and sympathy falsely aroused, after considering all the facts in their post-indictment setting
Texas v. Cobb
Protection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends only to the formal charge that has occurred
McLeod v. Ohio
Constitution prohibits the use of statements against interest by a defendant who has not even been advised of his right to counsel
People v. Hobson
An attempt to secure a wavier of the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding in the absence of a lawyer, already retained or assigned, would constitute a breach of professional ethics
Hoffa v. United States
You don’t have a right to counsel, because you have counsel, it’s AFTER you’re charged, the government cannot question or go the individual, they have to go to the counsel (absent a valid waiver)
United States v. Henry
Sixth Amendment is not violated whenever the state obtained incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached
Kulhmann v. Wilson
Defendant does not make out a violation if that right simply by showing that an informant, either through prior arrangement or voluntarily, reported his incriminating statements to the police
Massiah v. United States
Right to counsel applies from the moment of the formal charges, not right from when there are formal charges and counsel has been appointed; applies right from the outset of formal charges
Brewer v. Williams
Regardless of when they’re given, statements have to be voluntary; don’t admit statements into evidence that are compelled
Pennsylvania v. Muniz
If the conduct displayed by a defendant is no testimonial, Miranda doesn’t apply (i.e. slurred speech, answers to routine questions)
New York v. Quarles
Need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination
Colorado v. Spring
Fifth Amendment’s guarantee is both simpler and more fundamental- a defendant may not be compelled to be a witness against himself in any respect
State v. Ross
Failure to give the Miranda rights was in error, can anyone be sure that he was fully informed of those rights unless the full Miranda warning was given
State v. Avila
Warnings given were not in compliance with Miranda and constituted error even though the defendant might have generally known as stated by the police, what his rights were
United States v. Street
Warnings are even required if the defendant was a police officer who clearly knew the rights
Escobedo v. Illinois
Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona/Vignera v. New York/Westover v. United States/California v. Stewart
You have the right to remain silent- anything you say an and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to assistance of counsel, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.
California v. Pryscok
Warnings required and the wavier necessary in accordance with out opinion, are in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant
Orozco v. Texas
Interrogation is in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way
Mathis v. United States
When an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant want and is subjected to questioning, the privilege of self-incrimination is jeopardized
Yarborough v. Alabama
So long as the child’s age was known to the officer at the time of the interview, or would have been objectively apparent to any reasonable officer, including age as part of the custody analysis requires officers neither to consider circumstances unknowable to them nor to anticipate the frailties or idiosyncrasies of the particular suspect whom they question
Howes v. Fields
Three elements that are not necessarily enough to create a custodial situation for Miranda purposes
-Imprisonment
-Questioning in private
-Questioning about events in the outside world
Relevant Factors
-Location
-Duration
-Statements made during the interview
-Presence/absence of physical restraints during questioning
-Release of interviewee at the end of questioning
Oregon v. Mathiason
Such a noncustodial situation is not converted to one in which Miranda applies simply because a reviewing court concludes that, even in the absence of any formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement, the questioning took place in a coercive environment
Michigan v. Mosley
Any statement taken after the person invoked his privilege as the product of compulsion and would therefore mandate its exclusion from evidence even if it were volunteered by the person in custody without any further interrogation whatever
Edwards v. Arizona
When an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights
Rhode Island v. Innis
Undisputed right under Miranda to remain silent and to be free of interrogation until he had consulted with a lawyer
North Carolina v. Butler
Accused may himself validly waive his rights and respond to interrogation
Commonwealth v. Cohen
Held the waivers to be invalid applying the following factors:
- Length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation
- Whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given
- Whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning
- Whether the statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings
Berghuis v. Thompkins
Waived his Miranda right to remain silent when he “knowingly and voluntarily” made a statement to the police
Davis v. United States
Suspect must do so unambiguously in invoking Miranda right
Commonwealth v. Cohen
Held the waivers to be invalid applying the following factors:
- Length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation
- Whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given
- Whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning
- Whether the statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings
