Miranda v. Arizona

Question 1

What is an involuntary Confession?

Answer 1

Police tactics are so overbearing that it is hard to believe that this was a trustworthy statement made by the suspect.

Question 2

What are the two tests for statements or confessions?

Answer 2

1) Voluntariness Test

2) Miranda Test

Question 3

What are the two things that must be present for Miranda to apply?

Answer 3

1) A Custodial Arrest;

2) An interrogation

Question 4

What is the point of Miranda?

Answer 4

To protect people during custodial interrogations and remove the inherent atmosphere of compulsion that attaches to a custodial interrogation.

Question 5

What is the standard required for the waiver of Miranda rights?

Answer 5

V.I.K. Standards are required.
V - Voluntariness
I - Intelligently
K - Knowingly

If the person is going to waive their rights, they must fulfill the VIK standard and the government must show this though a heavy burden.
Heavy Burden = Civil Standard of Preponderance of the Evidence (51/49)

Question 6

What is required for a Miranda Waiver?

Answer 6

Standard is VIK. Also, intelligently does not mean the decision to waive Miranda rights is intelligent, but that the person waiving their rights does so with the mental capacity to understand what they are doing.

Question 7

Do the police have to provide a lawyer to a person who invokes their right to a 5th amendment attorney?

Answer 7

No. If the suspect chooses to invoke their rights to a lawyer after being informed of their Miranda rights, then the police simply have to stop the interrogation. There is no requirement to provide one at that time though.

Question 8

Do the police need to re-Mirandize the suspect if they start discussing a different crime?

Answer 8

No. The Miranda warnings are one size fits all. An individual can either invoke or waive their rights. Once the rights are waived, the police can ask anything they want until the suspect chooses to invoke their rights.

Question 9

What does it mean to be in “Custodial Arrest?”

Answer 9

To determine if the suspect was in custodial arrest requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances to determine if the individual would have objectively, reasonably felt that they were not free to leave at that time.

Question 10

Does being in a police station mean a custodial arrest has taken place?

Answer 10

No. Simply being in a police station does not mean that a custodial arrest or interrogation has taken place. Because, depending on the circumstances, the person may be free to leave.

Question 11

What does J.D.B. v. North Carolina state about the test used to determine if a Miranda waiver was given in accordance with the VIK standards?

Answer 11

As a general rule, the totality of the circumstances test should remain an objective test from the view of a reasonable police officer in determining if the suspect understood their Miranda warnings. But, J.D.B. created an exception. The exception being that the police should examine the suspects age when deciding whether the VIK standard was fulfilled. So, taking the age of the suspect into account should be done as well.

Question 12

What is a Miranda Interrogation? Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

Answer 12

Interrogation: Miranda comes into play whenever a person in custody is subject to either express questioning or the functional equivalent.

Function equivalent: Any words or actions the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

This definition of interrogation is narrowly tailored to a very personal and specific level. So the police must know that what they are saying will cause the suspect to say something incriminating.

Question 13

Would the police allowing the wife of a suspect to speak with a suspect, then the suspect makes incriminating statements, would this qualify as a violation of Miranda? Arizona v. Mauro (1987)

Answer 13

The entire point of Miranda is to protect the suspect from the coercion of the police. Because the wife is not dressed in police blue, this does not violate the suspects Miranda rights. There must be an atmosphere of compulsion to result in a Miranda violation.

Question 14

Do Miranda warnings allow the suspect to bring anyone in, or just an attorney?

Answer 14

Court ruled that the Miranda warnings only allow for an attorney, no one else.

Question 15

Pennsylvania v. Muniz provides for the “routine booking exception.” What is the routine booking exception?

Answer 15

After the suspect invokes his Miranda rights, the police can send him to the jail where he will be booked into the jail. He will be asked questions regarding his name, age, address, ect. These questions are allowed, but the justices couldn’t agree on the reasoning.

4 justices said they could come in because they are not testimonial.. 4 more said they are testimonial, but fall into a routine booking exceptions.

Question 16

Under New York v. Quarels, an exception to Miranda was created. What is it, and what does it allow?

Answer 16

New York v. Quarels created the Public Safety Exception that allows the police to ask questions without Mirandizing the suspect for the safety of themselves and the public.

Question 17

If Miranda is a Constitutional Rule, how can there be exceptions to it? Dickerson v. United States 2000

Answer 17

The court calls Miranda a “prophylactic” rule. Meaning Miranda over-protects the rights provided for in the 5th amendment. In this way, it is alright to make exceptions to the rule without violating the constitution. But, then in Dickerson, the court holds that Miranda is a Constitutional decision.

Question 18

When does a 5th amendment violation occur? Chavez v. Martinez (2003)

Answer 18

A 5th amendment violation occurs at at trial, it is impossible to have one in the interrogation room. Because no person shall be compelled to testify against themselves and this would occur in the courtroom, not in the interrogation room. So, the potential violation occurs in the interrogation room.

Question 19

When can statements that violate Miranda be used?

Answer 19

Statements that violate Miranda cannot be used during the states case-in-chief, but they can be used to impeach the witness during cross-examination.

Question 20

When can coerced statements be used?

Answer 20

Coerced statements may never be used at any stage of trial. Unlike Miranda violation statements, which can be used to impeach.

Question 21

Does the violation of Miranda trigger the exclusionary rule?

Answer 21

No. The mere violation of Miranda does not trigger an exclusionary rule.

Question 22

What is the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine?

Answer 22

Derivative evidence from primary evidence that was illegally seized cannot be introduced against the defendant because it would not have been discovered without the illegal evidence.

If the illegal evidence is a confession, the statement will be suppressed, but the resulting evidence will be allowed.