Crim Pro - MIRANDA Flashcards
Origin of the MIRANDA DOCTRINE
Miranda Rights are implied rights grounded in the Self-Incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment
What are the FOUR Core MIRANDA WARNINGS?
(1) The right to remain SILENT
(2) anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
(3) the right to an Attorney
(4) if you cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for you
When are Miranda Warnings Necessary?
MBE book: Anyone in police CUSTODY and accused of a crime, no matter how minor a crime, must be given MIRANDA warnings PRIOR TO INTERROGATION by the police.
Custodial Interrogations - There are TWO core requirements
(1) CUSTODY - A suspect in CUSTODY, for MIRANDA purposes, if atmosphere, viewed OBJECTIVELY, is characterized by
(i) POLICE DOMINATION and
(ii) COERCION such that his or her
(iii) FREEDOM OF ACTION is limited in a “SIGNIFICANT WAY”
- -e.g. 4 police officers enter D’s bedroom at 4am, awaken him and begin to question him and during course of questioning, D incriminates himself. THIS counts as CUSTODIAL interrogation, needed MIRANDA
(2) INTERROGATION - The 5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine defines INTERROGATION as any conduct the police knew or should have known was LIKELY TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE
- *Remember, Miranda does NOT apply to incriminating statements made SPONTANEOUSLY, since they are NOT the product of INTERROGATION
- -e.g. police officer poses as inmate and befriends D who confesses to him, NO INTERROGATION SO NO NEED FOR MIRANDA, not an atmosphere of police domination and coercion
What is the “Public Safety” Exception to MIRANDA?
If CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION is prompted by an IMMEDIATE CONCERN for PUBLIC SAFETY, MIRANDA WARNINGS are unnecessary and any incriminating statements are ADMISSIBLE against the suspect
–e.g. surviving boston bomber - police had to question to see if other bombs or accomplices were out there posing an immediate threat
Requirements for COMMUNICATING MIRANDA RIGHTS
Unless the public safety exception applies, incriminating testimonial responses obtained through CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION are admissible provided the officer, before initiating questioning:
(i) REASONABLY CONVEYS to the suspect his or her core Miranda Righs, AND
(ii) Suspect WAIVES - thereafter obtains a VALID WAIVER of a suspect’s Miranda rights to SILENCE and COUNSEL
What are the requirements for A VALID MIRANDA WAIVER?
2 requirements
(1) “KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT” - A Miranda Waiver is Knowing and Intelligent if suspect UNDERSTANDS:
- –(i) the NATURE of the rights; and
- –(ii) the CONSEQUENCES of abandoning them
(2) VOLUNTARY - A Miranda Waiver is VOLUNTARY if it is not the product of POLICE COERCION
***NY Parent/Child Rule
MIRANDA
If the police use DECEPTION or CONCEALMENT to keep a parent away from a child who is being interrogated, the Child’s waiver may be deemed invalid
EXECUTING a MIRANDA WAIVER - can a Miranda Waiver be Implied?
Miranda Waivers
A Miranda Waiver need not be “Express” it may be IMPLIED by a course of conduct that indicates the desire to speak with police interrogators
(a) IF the suspect has received and understood his MIRANDA rights, he waives his right to remain silent by making an UNCOERCED statement to the police
BURDEN OF PROOF
Miranda Waivers
The PROSECUTION BEARS the BURDEN OF PROVING a valid waiver of a suspect’s MIRANDA rights by a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence
How does a suspect INVOKE his MIRANDA Right to REMAIN SILENT?
(1) suspect must UNAMBIGUOUSLY invoke the right to REMAIN SILENT
(2) Once the suspects invoke the right to remain silent, police officers must SCRUPULOUSLY HONOR the invocation. This means, at the very least, that the police cannot badger a suspect into talking; in addition police detectives must wait a significant period of time before REINITIATING questioning AND must first obtain a valid MIRANDA WAIVER
How does one INVOKE the RIGHT TO COUNSEL?
Miranda Rights
(1) Once a suspect asks for counsel (“lawyers up”), ALL interrogation must ceases UNLESS initiated by the suspect
(2) the request for counsel must be SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR that a reasonable officer in the same situation would understand the statement to be a request for counsel
(3) unlike the 6th amendment, the 5th amendment right to counsel is NOT OFFENSE-SPECIFIC; THEREFORE, interrogation following a request for counsel under MIRANDA is prohibited as to ALL TOPICS, outside the presence of the suspect’s attorney
(4) The request for counsel expires 14 DAYS after a suspect is released from custody; a waiver of the MIRANDA RIGHT TO COUNSEL obtained after this period is VALID, provided it is “KNOWING, INTELLIGENT and VOLUNTARY”
Limitations on evidentiary exclusion as applied to MIRANDA violations
CPSH - CPHS - Creighton Prep High School
(1) CASE-IN-CHIEF - Incriminating statements obtained in violation of a suspect’s MIRANDA rights are INADMISSIBLE in the prosecutor’s CASE-IN-CHIEF but may be used to IMPEACH the D’s testimony on CROSS-EXAMINATION but NOT the testimony of THIRD PARTY
(2) PHYSICAL FRUITS - Failure to give a suspect MIRANDA warnings does NOT require the suppression of the “PHYSICAL FRUITS” of incriminating statements, provided the statements are VOLUNTARY
e. g. Jim confesses to killing business partner adn tells cops where he hid murder weapon. interrogation held to violate Miranda, Jim can suppress the statement, but NOT the weapon
(3) SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS - If statement inadmissible due to MIRANDA violation, subsequent statements made after obtaining a Miranda waiver ARE admissible, provided the initial, non-Mirandized statement was not obtained through the use of inherently coercive police tactics, offensive to due process
(4) HARMLESS ERROR RULE - If testimonial evidence that should have been excluded as violative of MIRANDA was improperly admitted at trial and D was convicted, CT NOT REQUIRED TO VACATE IF govt can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the error was HARMLESS bc the D would have been convicted without the tainted evidence
(Note: this also applies to PHYSICAL evidence improperly admitted under the 4th amendment - aka the HARMLESS ERROR RULE)
