Confessions & Miranda

Question 1

Garner v. US, Minnesota v. Murphy, Salinas v. Texas—Invoking the Privilege

Answer 1

Garner v. US
Held that a taxpayer lost whatever privilege he might have had when he answered questions on a tax return rather than invoking the privilege

Minnesota v. Murphy
A person who is asked to answer questions must invoke their privilege against self-incrimination or lose its protection—held that a probationer lost their protection of the privilege when they answered questions of their probation officer concerning crimes for which they had yet to be charged

Salinas v. Texas
Held that salinas 5th amendment right was not violated by the use of his silence—Alito relied on Minnesota v. Murphy to conclude that salinas could not rely on his 5th at trial because he had not invoked it at the time he was questioned

Question 2

Pre-Miranda Cases—Circumstances Relevant to Involuntariness

Answer 2

Personal Characteristics of the Accused:
Educational background
Mental inhibitions
Insanity

Experience in Criminal Proceedings:
Legal Knowledge
Physical Deprivation or Mistreatment
Denial of food
Denial of sleep

Psychological Pressure:
Use of threats
Humiliation
Isolation

Question 3

Spano v. NY—Coercion

Answer 3

Does the admission of Spano’s confession violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous opinion. The Court held that the interrogation tactics the police used – such as questioning Spano for hours without a break and using a childhood friend to manipulate him – were coercive and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the confession was involuntary, it should not have been admitted into evidence in trial.

Question 4

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 4

An individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation.

Question 5

Miranda Warnings

Answer 5

1. At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.
2. The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.
3. Therefore, the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today.
4. In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system, then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

Question 6

Miranda Procedures Post-Warning

Answer 6

1. If the individual indicates they wish to remain silent at any time before or during questioning, the interrogation must stop immediately.
2. If the individual requests an attorney, the interrogation must cease until the attorney is present, and the suspect must have the opportunity to consult with the attorney before any further questioning.
3. If the individual cannot afford an attorney but requests one, the police must respect their decision to remain silent until an attorney is provided.