Confessions - Miranda & Massiah Flashcards
miranda - when must warnings be given (flesh out 2 key elements)
• rule: The police must give Miranda warnings to any person in custody and subject to interrogation by government officials, no matter how minor the crime.
o Custody: a reasonable person of the same age (OBJECTIVE standard) would conclude that he or she is not free to terminate the interrogation and the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as station-house questioning (i.e., police car, handcuffs)
»> routine traffic stops, Terry stops, general questions at the scene of a crime, voluntary appearances at the police station, and probation officer interviews are usually not considered “custody”
»> if, during a voluntary appearance, the police notify the suspect that he is “under arrest” or that he is being “charged with a crime,” the suspect will be considered in “custody” at that moment
o Interrogation: ANY conduct (e.g., questions, statements, actions) by police officers for the purpose of eliciting damaging statements
when are miranda warnings not required (4 scenarios)
• Miranda warnings are not required:
o when a person makes a spontaneous statement (i.e., “blurts out” information)
o in case of public safety emergency (e.g., the defendant, who is in police custody at the scene of a crime, is asked, “where did you hide the gun?”)
o for routine booking questions
• A witness subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury also has no right to Miranda warnings.
voluntariness of confessions (rule; test; hearing requirements; effects of mental illness; harmless error considerations)
all confessions must be voluntary under the Due Process Clause.
o Voluntariness is judged on a subjective basis considering the totality of the circumstances, including (1) the defendant’s personal characteristics (e.g., age, intelligence); (2) the nature of the detention; (3) the manner of interrogation; and (4) the use of force, threats, promises, or deceptions. A confession is involuntary only if it is the result of police coercion (as opposed to mental illness of the defendant or coercion by private parties).
o The hearing to determine the admissibility of a confession must be done outside the presence of the jury.
o **once again, a defendant’s mental illness does not affect our voluntariness inquiry - look only to POLICE COERCION
o harmless error applies: conviction based on an involuntary confession need not be overturned if there is otherwise overwhelming evidence of guilt
four miranda warnings (and 2 key notes)
(1) must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms of the right to remain silent
(2) must be informed that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court
(3) must be informed of right to have counsel present at the interrogation, and
(4) must be informed that he is indigent, counsel will be appointed for him
note: this is an across-the-board rule and does not look to an individual’s knowledge like voluntariness would – it is meant to be a “one size fits all” rule for ease of use by law enforcement
note: these warnings DO NOT need to be verbatim!
purpose of miranda; 2 methods to terminate interrogation
- purpose of Miranda is to protect your 5th amendment right against self incrimination by protecting you against police coercion of confessions
- An accused may terminate interrogation prior to or during the interrogation by invoking the right to remain silent or the right to counsel.
5th Amendment right to remain silent
• An accused may terminate interrogation prior to or during the interrogation by invoking the right to remain silent or the right to counsel.
– Right to Remain Silent. Until the accused UNAMBIGUOUSLY invokes the right to remain silent, the police may continue to interrogate the accused, and the police are not required to make attempts to clarify an ambiguous request.
»> If an accused unambiguously invokes the right to remain silent, the police must cease questioning (i.e., “scrupulously honor” the request), but later questioning may occur after a delay and with new Miranda warnings.
»> The detainee’s silence DOES NOT constitute an invocation of the right to remain silent.
**5th Amendment also carries with it an implicit assurance that silence in response to police question/Miranda cannot be used against the defendant in court
5th amendment right to counsel
– Right to Counsel. Until the accused makes an UNAMBIGUOUS request for counsel, the police may continue to interrogate the accused, and the police are not required to make attempts to clarify an ambiguous request.
- Once the accused makes an unambiguous request for counsel to assist with custodial interrogation, questioning must cease and cannot be restarted by the police, unless (1) the attorney is actually present for the future interrogation or (2) the accused initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations about the investigation (e.g., by asking “What is going to happen to me now?”).
- The request for counsel stays in effect for the entire time that the accused is in custody for interrogation purposes and for 14 days thereafter.
- This is the only use of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, which is not offense-specific; this means that police are precluded from restarting questioning about the same crime or unrelated crimes, unless counsel is present.
fifth amendment and police informants
– It is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment to place an informer (or undercover officer) in the accused’s cell to elicit statements from the accused, as Miranda is inapplicable to interrogation by someone the accused does not know is a police officer. If the accused has been charged, the Sixth Amendment would apply.
sixth amendment privilege - right, goal/inquiry, and waiver
- Under the Sixth Amendment, there is a right to counsel AFTER the accused has been charged by a prosecutor or indicted by a grand jury (i.e. formal proceedings have been initiated). The accused’s lawyer must be present for any further interrogation at this point.
- the goal: to prevent police from intentionally creating a situation likely to induce the suspect to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel
- The accused may waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and this waiver does not require the approval or presence of court-appointed counsel—at least where the accused did not request counsel for the purpose of interrogation.
sixth amendment privilege - which offenses it applies to (Blockburger test)
• The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, so the police may interrogate the accused about different crimes (under the Blockburger test, two crimes are considered different if each requires proof of an additional element that the other crime does not require). The different crime may be related or unrelated to the charged crime.
> > > Example: Defendant had been indicted for burglary of a residence but had not been charged with the murders of the two occupants of the burglarized home. As a result, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not bar police from interrogating the defendant regarding the murders because burglary and capital (intentional) murder are different crimes under the Supreme Court’s Blockburger test.
> > > Example: Same facts except the police interrogate the defendant regarding the crime of felony-murder. Such interrogation would violate the Sixth Amendment because burglary is a lesser included offense of felony-murder.
distinguish miranda and massiah
o Compare/Contrast Miranda and Massiah
first off, its right to counsel (Massiah) vs right against self incrim (Miranda)
**where a formally charged defendant is custodially questioned by law enforcement, he is protected by both Miranda and Massiah
**Miranda, unlike Massiah, does not require that judicial proceedings have been initiated
Massiah, unlike Miranda, does not require the defendant be in custody
to run afoul of Massiah, the government must deliberately elicit a statement from the defendant – for purposes of Miranda violation, it is only necessary that the officer should know (reasonable officer would know) that her words or actions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
Massiah, unlike Miranda, is offense-specific
Massiah can apply to police informants who are acting as agents of law enforcement, whereas Miranda does not provide protection against false friends including undercover law enforcement/police informants
Massiah, unlike Miranda, is only applicable if a defendant is represented by counsel [Massiah does not apply if a defendant is proceeding pro se]
generally, Miranda rights are sufficient to inform suspects of their 6th Am rights as well
waiver is the same in both contexts, but, sometimes a Miranda waiver will be insufficient for 6th Am purposes
»> ex) police officers who fail to inform suspects during questioning that a lawyer is trying to reach them do not compromise the validity of the suspects’ Miranda waivers; however, Sixth Amendment waivers would not exist in such circumstances (Patterson)
the appointment of counsel at a Sixth Amendment hearing, such as an initial arraignment at which suspects hears the charges filed against them and a judge sets bail, does not invalidate a subsequent Sixth Amendment waiver for purposes of custodial interrogation (Montejo)
»> accordingly, incriminating statements made by the defendant during the interrogation are admissible, provided the prosecution demonstrates that the defendant waived his right to counsel knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waiver of miranda warnings
• Waivers of Miranda must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; waivers will not be presumed.
> > > A waiver will implied if the suspect “understood” the Miranda warnings and then answers questions
The failure of the police to inform a suspect that his family has retained an attorney for him (and that the attorney has been in contact with the police) DOES NOT invalidate the suspect’s waiver of his Miranda rights.
sixth amendment privilege - rules for informants
• Once the defendant is charged (or indicted), the police CANNOT place an informer in his or her cell to elicit statements (i.e., initiate a confession) from the accused about the crime for which he or she has been charged.
– HOWEVER, it is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment:
• to place an informer in the accused’s cell MERELY TO LISTEN to the accused, or
»> the state can use statements obtained by informants who are agents of the state so long as the informant does not take some action, beyond merely listening, that is designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks
»> **will be considered coercive it the informant intentionally created a situation likely to induce the suspect to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel
• to place an informer or undercover officer in the accused’s cell to elicit statements about a DIFFERENT crime.
when can a confession obtained in violation of miranda/massiah be used in court?
An otherwise VOLUNTARY confession that violates Miranda or the Sixth Amendment (and thus would not be admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief) MAY be used TO IMPEACH the defendant as a witness
BUT a truly involuntary confession may not
at what proceedings does the 6th am right to counsel exist?
at what proceedings does the right NOT exist?
• The 6th Amendment right to counsel exists at ALL CRITICAL STAGES of the case:
– post-indictment interrogation (need not be custodial)
– probable cause hearings to determine whether to PROSECUTE
– arraignment
– POST-charge line-ups (for the whole line-up)
– guilty plea & sentencing
– felony trials and misdemeanor trials when imprisonment is actually imposed or when a suspended jail sentence is imposed
– overnight recesses during trial
– appeal as a matter of right
– appeals of guilty pleas
• however, there is NO RIGHT to counsel at:
– a grand jury proceeding
– the taking of physical evidence, such as handwriting exemplars, fingerprints, or blood samples
– a PRE-indictment (or pre-charge) lineup
– a PRE- or POST-indictment photo display
– the initial appearance to determine probable cause to DETAIN the defendant (Gerstein Hearing)
– discretionary appeals and habeas corpus proceedings
– state post-conviction proceedings
– parole and probation revocation proceedings
