CP Ch. 21 Voluntary Statements under the Fourteenth Amendment

Question 1

The most decisive evidence in a criminal case often comes from:

Answer 1

the mouth of the accused.

Question 2

The (blank) is the most frequent. It occurs when the suspect speaks to another person- civilian or police officer- and provides information implicating himself in a crime.

Answer 2

The spoken admission

Question 3

Any statement made in the presence of the suspect, where the suspect’s response- whether orally, by gesture, or by revealing silence- indicates his acceptance.

Answer 3

An adoptive admission.

Ex. 13 year old indecent A&B victim sent multiple texts to the defendant about his sexual behavior towards her; the defendant never denied her statements in his return texts; they were adoptive admissions)

Question 4

An adoptive admission is any statement made in the presence of the suspect, where the suspect’s response- whether orally, by gesture, or by revealing silence- indicates his acceptance.

To justify the use of an adoptive admission, investigators must prove that: (3)

Answer 4

1. The suspect heard and understood the statement
2. He had an opportunity to respond; and
3. The context was one in which he would have been expected to respond.

Question 5

The law governing police interaction stems from three constitutional principles:

Answer 5

1. Voluntary statements (only voluntary statements may be used)
2. Warnings during custodial interrogation(right to remain silent; have lawyer present)
3. No interference with the attorney-client relationship (once a defendant has been arraigned or indicted)

Question 6

No adoptive statement may be inferred if the statement is made: (3)

Answer 6

1. After the accused has been placed under arrest
2. After the police have read him his Miranda rights; or
3. After he has been significantly deprived of his freedom by the police

Question 7

Overview of Interrogation Issues:

Fourteenth Amendment: Voluntary

All statements (even to private citizens) must be voluntary. The court considers whether: (2)

Answer 7

1. the interaction was coercive
2. the characteristics of the suspect made him susceptible to coercion

Note: An involuntary statement may not be introduced at trial. If it was voluntary, the next consideration is whether Miranda applies

Question 8

Overview of Interrogation Issues:

Fifth Amendment & Miranda:

State action: Miranda does NOT cover communications by a private individual. However, Miranda does cover communications to:

Answer 8

a police officer or quasi- law enforcement offical

Question 9

Overview of Interrogation Issues:

Fifth Amendment & Miranda:

Miranda warnings are required to protect the suspect’s privilege against self incrimination when an official:

Answer 9

1. Has the accused in a “custodial” situation; and
2. Interrogates him;
3. To obtain “testimonial evidence”

If any of these three requirements is missing, then the officer does not have to advise the accused of his Miranda rights.

Question 10

Overview of Interrogation Issues:

Fifth Amendment & Miranda:

Proper administration of rights: Were the Miranda rights properly:(3)

Answer 10

1. Administered by the officer; and
2. Waived by the accused; or
3. Invoked (i.e. used) and THEN waived by the accused.

Question 11

Overview of Interrogation Issues:

Article 12: Right to Counsel

Pending Charges: The Article 12 right to counsel applies when: (2)

Answer 11

1.The accused has been arraigned or indicted on a charge; and

2. Police questioning relates to that pending offense without a lawyer present or an adequate waiver.

Question 12

To be voluntary in Massachusetts, statement must satisfy the two- prong analysis :

Answer 12

1. The speaker must have been rational
2. The speaker must not have been coerced into making a statement

Question 13

A statement is involuntary if made by an irrational speaker with : (4)

Answer 13

1. severe mental illness
2. intoxication
3. injury
4. other condition

If a suspect appears extremely high, extremely emotional, and detached from reality, he should not be interviewed.

Question 15

The 14th Amendment requires voluntary statements:

The vast majority of interviewed suspects are rational. The main dispute usually centers on:

Answer 15

whether their statements were coerced.

Question 16

Totality of circumstances:

There is no clear test to determine whether a suspect was coerced into making a statement. A court will scrutinize all of the surrounding circumstances.

Two major considerations lie at the heart of a court’s assessment:

Answer 16

1. How did the police behave?
2. What are the characteristics of the suspect?

• The same considerations that determine whether a suspect’s statement is voluntary also determine whether he validly waived Miranda

Question 17

Police interviewed defendant after a victim identified him as the person who forced her into a building at knife point and sexually assaulted her. Defendant waived his Miranda rights. Defendant said he did not want to live a day without seeing his daughter. Detective turned the conversation towards the defendants daughter. Detective repeatedly told defendant that he would be the reason his girlfriend lost custody. He added that his child would be raised by strangers. Defendant said “please don;t take my daughter” and cried. He then made incriminating statements.

Coercive or legitimate police action?

Answer 17

This was coercive.

-false claims child would be taken away
- defendant was 18, emigrated from Africa, and had poor educational background.
-interview was hostile, and defendant was handcuffed the whole time

Question 18

True or false:

Legitimate police pressure is not “coercive”.

Answer 18

True

ex. Defendant’s written confession to the police, after he received miranda warnings, stated that he was the owner of controlled substances in his home. His confession was voluntary, because the police truthfully explained to him that both he and his mother would be charged with narcotics offenses unless he took responsibility. The police did have probable cause to arrest the defendant’s mother, who lived in the apartment. Officer’s used no false information. A true statement about a relatives criminal exposure is a legitimate tactic to obtain an incriminating statement.

Question 19

True or false:

Police may delay medical or mental health treatment until they have secured a confession.

Answer 19

FALSE.

Police may NOT delay medical or mental health treatment.

Confessions will be suppressed as involuntary.

Question 20

True or false?

The police may not promise mental health treatment in a misleading way.

Answer 20

True.

Question 21

If the suspect decides to speak, providing false information may be permissible if:

Answer 21

it is the only questionable police tactic.

Ex. officers walked the defendant by his co-defendant in the station, then later pretended that this person had implicated him. The ploy worked and defendant confessed to murdering an elderly woman.

The SJC approved because the defendant waived his rights before these tactics were used.

Question 22

Police may NEVER trick a suspect into:

Answer 22

waiving his Miranda rights.

Question 23

False information or minimization should NEVER be combined with:

Answer 23

an offer of leniency.

“John, we have your prints all over the murder scene (false). Admit it now and you’re looking at manslaughter. Stay quiet and you’ll spend the rest of your life in prison.”

Question 24

Minimization is defined as a (blank) technique.

Answer 24

“soft-sell”

Question 25

Minimizing a crime becomes toxic when:

Answer 25

Officers blatantly misrepresent the defendant’s legal predicament.

Ex. defendant set numerous houses on fire; 2 people died; his confession was suppressed mainly because the lead investigator misrepresented that deaths caused by arson do not qualify as murder if the person did not intend to kill anybody.

Question 26

Promising a suspect a specific legal outcome is:

Answer 26

forbidden

Note: Officers may say to a suspect that his cooperation will be brought to the prosecutor’s attention, or similar. But officers may not promise a specific outcome, since only a prosecutor has the final authority to drop charges or recommend a lesser sentence.

Question 27

The officer presented the “slight” conditional promise to the defendant that, “if he demonstrated good faith by revealing the location of the weapon, the district attorney would discuss leniency.

Improper or acceptable.

Answer 27

Acceptable.

Question 28

Interrogation

Are reasonable psychological or religious appeals permissible?

Answer 28

Yes.

Question 29

Before questioning, officers are NOT obligated to inform a person that he is a suspect. However, if police do inform an individual of their suspicions, a court it more likely to:

Answer 29

conclude that the suspect spoke voluntarily.

-because he understood the consequences of cooperation.

Question 30

Are officers required to provide legal advice?

Answer 30

No.

ex. defendant admitted he was present at a murder because he did not understand that he could be charged as an accomplice even though he did not stab the victim; officers had no duty to tell him about the law relating to accomplices.

Question 31

Officers are not obligated to provide legal advice. However, if investigators respond to a legal question, they must provide:

Answer 31

accurate information,

Question 32

May officers mislead a suspect about the need for a lawyer?

Answer 32

No.

ex. police told murder suspect “Groome” that he was not under arrest and was not charged with any crime, therefore he didn;t need a lawyer. SJC was very concerned about this misleading statement because, at that point, a high degree of suspicion had already fallen on the defendant.

Question 33

May officers tell a suspect that police are legally obligated to tell the truth?

Answer 33

No.

the law permits officers to, at times, misrepresent the strength of their evidence

Question 34

May officers suggest that their interview is the only opportunity to speak with police?

Answer 34

No.

There is no situation in which a suspect would not have the chance to talk with police at a later time

Question 35

May officers imply that a statement to police is the only way a defendant will be able to present his side to a jury?

Answer 35

No.

Misrepresenting a defendant’s right to testify is unacceptable.

*Compare: detective indicated the defendant’s failure to explain his involvement in the shooting would make him “look like a cold blooded killer”. detective never expressly state that defendant would lose his right to testify at trial. This was acceptable.

Question 36

May police tell a suspect that if he calls an attorney, “all deals are off the table.”

Answer 36

No.

Question 37

May police promise not to arrest a suspect at the end of an interview?

Answer 37

Yes. as long as they keep their promise

this does not mean that the defendant will NEVER be arrested or prosecuted.

Question 38

Police may implicate another agency’s informant, if they do not:

Answer 38

mislead him.

Question 39

Setting & Style of Interrogation( to determine voluntary vs coercive)

5 of the factors considered:

Answer 39

1. Physical Setting (defendant’s living room vs basement of the police station)
2. Number of officers (2 plain clothes vs 4 uniformed)
3. Length of interrogation (detention for an extended period of time supports a defendant’s claim that he only confessed because his will was broken)
4. Providing, food, drink, and bathroom privileges
5. Arranging child care

Question 41

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

(9):

Answer 41

1. Age
2. Education
3. Intelligence
4. Mental Illness
5. Disability
6. Language Proficiency
7. Experience with Justice system
8. Self Protection
9. Physical Condition

Question 42

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

Age is a major factor because younger people are more prone to:

Answer 42

suggestion and police coercion.

*Courts carefully scrutinize the circumstances surrounding their statements

Question 43

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

An accused person with minimal education may be:

Answer 43

susceptible to coercion.

Question 44

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

Disability: Officers must be sensitive to any disability that may affect whether the accused can:

Answer 44

comprehend or communicate.

Question 45

Who is responsible for getting and interpreter for any deaf or hearing impaired person?

Answer 45

the arresting officer.

-Statements are inadmissible without this safeguard

Question 46

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

Language proficiency: Police must ensure that the suspect can adequately speak English or provide translation services. Does the law require independent interpreters?

Answer 46

No. Police officers who are fluent may interpret.

Ex. Defendant spoke Brazilian Portuguese but understood Miranda warning given in Continental Portuguese; any minor variations in translation did not prevent his understanding

Question 47

Any interview using an interpreter should be:

Answer 47

recorded.

*Unless it is impractical at the time.

Question 48

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

Experience with the justice system: A person’s history with the criminal justice system is relevant. Someone with a criminal background is familiar with police practices and, consequently, is less likely to feel:

Answer 48

intimidated.

Question 49

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

Self-protection: If the accused has the presence of mind to refuse to answer certain questions, or to assert himself in other ways, he is probably not:

Answer 49

intimidated.

Question 50

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

Physical condition: True of false?

An injured or ill suspect is more vulnerable.

Answer 50

True.

Ex. defendant could not speak freely in hospital while suffering unbearable pain

Compare: ex defendant’s admission on the street that he started the deadly fire was voluntary despite his pain from burn injuries.

Question 51

Interrogation:

Suspects Characteristics: (susceptibility to coercion)

Alcohol or drug intoxication: The fact that a suspect consumed alcohol and/or drugs is important in evaluating whether he spoke freely.

Officers may rely on: (2)

Answer 51

1. outward signs of sobriety
2. their prior experience with the suspect

Question 52

All statements against accused must be voluntary:

Massachusetts has a strict screening process known as the (blank) rule.

Answer 52

“Humane Practice” Rule.

• First, the judge must conclude that the defendant’s statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, they jury is instructed that it must be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused spoke voluntarily in order to consider any of his statements.

Question 53

Massachusetts prohibits ANY involuntary statement, even one to a:

Answer 53

private citizen.

Mahnke case- abducted by victims father him and held him in a cabin until he confessed and told where the body was. SJC ruled that his statements were inadmissible even though they were made to private citizens not acting as agents of law enforcement.

Question 55

As an additional legal protection, a conviction may not be based solely on a defendant’s:

Answer 55

uncorroborated confession.

“There must be some evidence, besides the confession, that the criminal act was committed by someone… and not imaginary”

Note: The law does not require corroboration for each element of the crime, it simply requires evidence that a crime was committed.