Right to Counsel - Self Incrimintaion

Question 1

Powell v Alabama (1932)

Incorporation Case

Answer 1

denial of the right to counsel violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment

*there are certain immutable principles of justice which inhere the idea of free govt

Question 2

What is the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment?

Answer 2

• Due process deals with the administration of justice

- Acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

Question 3

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

*landmark case

Answer 3

held that states are to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses if they cannot afford lawyers themselves

Question 4

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Answer 4

Held that statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of their liberty do not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege

5th amendment self incrimination clause
6th amendment right to counsel

Question 5

Strickland Test

Answer 5

1. defendant must prove the counsel’s performance was deficient.
2. defendant must prove that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

Must prove both

Question 6

Dickerson v US (2000)

Answer 6

upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona

Question 7

Missouri v Seibert (2004)

Answer 7

that struck down the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession.

the first confession must be excluded because the suspect was not read the Miranda Rights and the second must also be excluded because it was obtained by police using first confession.

Question 8

Berhuis v Thomkins (2010)

Answer 8

held that a suspect must unambiguously and equivocally invoke the right to remain silent, and if incriminating statements are made they may be considered a waiver of the right to remain silent

Question 9

Brewer v Williams (1977)

Answer 9

Although incriminating statements could not be introduced into evidence at second trial, evidence of the body’s location and condition were admissible because the body could have been discovered in any event

Question 10

Rhode Island v Innis (1980)

Answer 10

Miranda safeguards come into play ‘whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent”

Question 11

Nix v Williams (1984)

Answer 11

created an “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule.

Question 12

Maryland v Shatzer (2010)

Answer 12

held that a suspects incriminating statements could be used in trial, even though they were made in the second interrogation in which he waived the right to counsel and which took place more than two weeks after the first interrogated and informed of his right to counsel.

Question 13

Montejo v Lousiana (2009)

Answer 13

Court overturned decision in Michigan v Jackson, that barred police from initiating questions unless a suspect’s lawyer is present.
Basically, yes police can question him even if his lawyer isnt present if the suspect agrees.

Question 14

Arizona v Fulminante (1991)

Answer 14

Coerced confessions are not a “harmless error”