Remainder

Question 1

5th Amendment

Answer 1

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Question 2

When is the self-incrimination privilege violated?

Answer 2

When a compelled statement is offered at the criminal trial, bc that is the plain meaning of being a witness against himself….in any criminal case. o

Even if the prosecution does not seek to introduce the compelled statement at the criminal trial, a civil action based on due process is permissible.

Question 3

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 3

(1) custody
(2) interrogation

Question 4

custodial interrogation

Answer 4

questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Question 5

Berkemer v. McCarty

Answer 5

(1) does Miranda govern misdemeanor traffic (yes)
(2) roadside questioning - custodial interrogation (no)

Question 6

Maryland v. Shatzer

Answer 6

prisoner incarcerated can not be “in custody”

Question 7

Rhode Island v. Innis

Answer 7

talk of gun w/ defendant in car (turn around) Not interrogation.

Express questioning of Defendant or functional equivalent (police officer reasonably believe it to illicit incriminating response)

Question 8

North Carolina v. Butler

Answer 8

a suspect need not make an express statement waiving his right to counsel.

Midwest nice? So what.

Question 9

Edwards v. AZ

Answer 9

Once a suspect has received his Miranda warnings and invoked his right to counsel, the police may not further interrogate the suspect until the suspect has been given access to counsel, unless the suspect initiates further communication with the police.

Question 10

Davis

Answer 10

No violation on where Davis waived, then mentioned atty/said no/continued.

Duty on Defendant to unambiguously invoke.

Question 11

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Answer 11

Waiver occurs when he starts talking. Where a defendant does not invoke his right to remain silent after fully understanding his Miranda rights, he implicity waives his rights by making a voluntary statement to police.

Question 12

Harris v. NY

Answer 12

statements made by a suspect who has not received the Miranda warnings may be admitted at trial for impeachment purposes.

Question 13

NY v. Quarles

Answer 13

statements made by a suspect who has not received the Miranda warnings may be admitted at trial for impeachment purposes.

Question 14

Oregon v. Elstad

Answer 14

A suspect can make a statement that is admissible in court after being read his Miranda warnings, even when he previously made an unwarned statement, because the inital failure to read a suspect his Miranda warnings does not taint later voluntary statements.

• Fruits

Question 15

Dickerson v. United States

Answer 15

Congress cannot legislatively supersede a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that interprets and applies the constitution.

Question 16

CO v. Spring

Answer 16

A suspect’s awareness of all the possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment privilege.

Question 17

Officer on scene wants to pun firearm (subjective motivation)

Answer 17

objective test as to whether the questions pertain to public safety.

This would be an interrogation and a miranda violation

Question 18

Missouri v. Seibert

Answer 18

Cannot wait for a particularly opportune time to give miranda warnings, after suspect has confessed.

The proper question: whether the warnings reasonably ‘convey to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.’

Question 19

McNeil v. Wisconsin

Answer 19

invoking one’s 6th amendment right to counsel for an offense where formal charges have been brought, does not automatically invoke one’s Miranda rights for other offenses where charges have not been formally brought.

-6th Amendment applies during any interrogation post-indictment.

Question 20

TX v. Cobb

Answer 20

p. 781